Hillary interviewed today for 3 and half hours by the FBI

[Slyhunter]

WikiLeaks - Hillary Clinton Email Archive

Um...who cares?
She didn't break any laws. So, her e-mails are now just a useless distraction.

it's proof the enemy hacked her system dude.

So? the entire argument for the last three months has been she broke the law. She is going to jail. she is, therefore, disqualified to run for President.

She didn't. She isn't. So who cares?

FBI is dirty and your excusing the Criminal who got away with it.
Hillary Clinton Committed Perjury Before Benghazi Committee

LMFAO. That's precious. You get to insist on your narrative, regardless of outcome.

FBI indicts: Hillary is a criminal.

FBI Clears. FBI is corrupt, and Hillary is STILL a criminal.

You reality deniers are just adorable.

They listed a list of her crimes she can be prosecuted for and then stated but were not prosecuting. That's the definition of a guy doing something he doesn't believe himself because dirty superiors made him do it.

 

[Slyhunter]

WikiLeaks - Hillary Clinton Email Archive

Um...who cares?
She didn't break any laws. So, her e-mails are now just a useless distraction.

She did break laws, the FBI said she didn't intendo to break them

The law doesn't require intention to be in violation of it.

Except it does. That's the point. Without intent, there is no crime.

incorrect. You need to reread 793.

 

[Slyhunter]

WikiLeaks - Hillary Clinton Email Archive

Um...who cares?
She didn't break any laws. So, her e-mails are now just a useless distraction.

She did break laws, the FBI said she didn't intendo to break them

The FBI said No. Crime. Was. Committed. You can parse the words any way you like, that means she didn't break any laws.

The fact that the FBI is pursuing this does not mean she's not a crime violator.
The truth is the truth no matter what the Liberals tell you.

Pursuing what? The FBI is done pursuing this. Comey made the announcement today. I included the quote with his direct statements. Hillary was cleared of any criminal activity.

someone needs to be fired for not doing their job and Hillary needs to go to jail.

 

[Czernobog]

Um...who cares?
She didn't break any laws. So, her e-mails are now just a useless distraction.

it's proof the enemy hacked her system dude.

So? the entire argument for the last three months has been she broke the law. She is going to jail. she is, therefore, disqualified to run for President.

She didn't. She isn't. So who cares?

FBI is dirty and your excusing the Criminal who got away with it.
Hillary Clinton Committed Perjury Before Benghazi Committee

LMFAO. That's precious. You get to insist on your narrative, regardless of outcome.

FBI indicts: Hillary is a criminal.

FBI Clears. FBI is corrupt, and Hillary is STILL a criminal.

You reality deniers are just adorable.

They listed a list of her crimes she can be prosecuted for and then stated but were not prosecuting. That's the definition of a guy doing something he doesn't believe himself because dirty superiors made him do it.

Whatever. Clearly you have no interest in existing in the real; world, so whay don't you just toddle on off, put on your tin-foil hat, and babble your retarded consiracy theories to someone who gives a fuck.

 

[Czernobog]

WikiLeaks - Hillary Clinton Email Archive

Um...who cares?
She didn't break any laws. So, her e-mails are now just a useless distraction.

She did break laws, the FBI said she didn't intendo to break them

The law doesn't require intention to be in violation of it.

Except it does. That's the point. Without intent, there is no crime.

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.

 

[jillian]

Um...who cares?
She didn't break any laws. So, her e-mails are now just a useless distraction.

She did break laws, the FBI said she didn't intendo to break them

The FBI said No. Crime. Was. Committed. You can parse the words any way you like, that means she didn't break any laws.

The fact that the FBI is pursuing this does not mean she's not a crime violator.
The truth is the truth no matter what the Liberals tell you.

Pursuing what? The FBI is done pursuing this. Comey made the announcement today. I included the quote with his direct statements. Hillary was cleared of any criminal activity.

someone needs to be fired for not doing their job and Hillary needs to go to jail.

there job is not to carry out your wingnuttery

 

[Slyhunter]

Um...who cares?
She didn't break any laws. So, her e-mails are now just a useless distraction.

She did break laws, the FBI said she didn't intendo to break them

The law doesn't require intention to be in violation of it.

Except it does. That's the point. Without intent, there is no crime.

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.

 

[jillian]

Um...who cares?
She didn't break any laws. So, her e-mails are now just a useless distraction.

She did break laws, the FBI said she didn't intendo to break them

The law doesn't require intention to be in violation of it.

Except it does. That's the point. Without intent, there is no crime.

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.

all true.although there are circumstances in which the actions are so severe that they prove intent by their nature. in this particular case the actions did not rise to that level. colin powell tried to tell them.

 

[guno]

well rightwing kooks looks like you did it to yourselves, again

 

[jillian]

She did break laws, the FBI said she didn't intendo to break them

The law doesn't require intention to be in violation of it.

Except it does. That's the point. Without intent, there is no crime.

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.

 

[Slyhunter]

The law doesn't require intention to be in violation of it.

Except it does. That's the point. Without intent, there is no crime.

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.

 

[jillian]

Except it does. That's the point. Without intent, there is no crime.

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.

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

 

[Czernobog]

She did break laws, the FBI said she didn't intendo to break them

The law doesn't require intention to be in violation of it.

Except it does. That's the point. Without intent, there is no crime.

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.

Oh. You're talking about the statute. It doesn't have to say it in the law. It is basic juris prudence. Crime requires intent. Period. If your kid darts out into the street, and I accidentally hit him, I cannot be charged with vehicular homicided, because there was no intent to hit your kid. If there is no intent, there is no crime.

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

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.

 

[Slyhunter]

The law doesn't require intention to be in violation of it.

Except it does. That's the point. Without intent, there is no crime.

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.

Oh. You're talking about the statute. It doesn't have to say it in the law. It is basic juris prudence. Crime requires intent. Period. If your kid darts out into the street, and I accidentally hit him, I cannot be charged with vehicular homicided, because there was no intent to hit your kid. If there is no intent, there is no crime.

You can be convicted of negligent homicide however.

 

[jillian]

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.

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[Czernobog]

Except it does. That's the point. Without intent, there is no crime.

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.

 

[jillian]

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.

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]

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.

It is GROSS negligence.