The Hill: Was Loretta Lynch coordinating with James Comey in the Clinton investigation?

[Ray From Cleveland]

The 3 U.S. Criminal Laws Hillary Broke with Her Email

While that is a delightfully retarded blog you've managed to come up with, I'd much prefer if you tried to use your own words, rather than vomit up something you googled.

And if I used my own words you would then be asking me for a link. Just wanted to beat you to the punch.

I will ask you for a link to back up any factual claims you make, of course.

But you've linked to opinion, not facts.

I don't want someone else's opinion, I'm asking for your opinion.

You should expect to back up any claims you make with facts, of course. You understand the difference between facts and opinion, right?

Do you? I suppose you can prove that (through the link) those are not laws she broke?

You're confused.

It's not my job to "prove" that she didn't break a law. It's your job to prove that she did break a law.

I just did, but now you are calling ass on my source. I'm getting ready to hit the sack, but if you would like, I can look them up for you tomorrow and provide (perhaps) a link that proves my source correct.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Do you guys really think that a greek chorus of "He's a troll" will really work to distract from the fact that none of you have been able to answer a simple question?

I ask again:

Do you believe that a crime occurred involving Comey, Lynch, and Clinton and the meeting on the tarmac?

If so, what law was broken?

Boy scout code..

Why you shouting and so upset?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

While that is a delightfully retarded blog you've managed to come up with, I'd much prefer if you tried to use your own words, rather than vomit up something you googled.

And if I used my own words you would then be asking me for a link. Just wanted to beat you to the punch.

I will ask you for a link to back up any factual claims you make, of course.

But you've linked to opinion, not facts.

I don't want someone else's opinion, I'm asking for your opinion.

You should expect to back up any claims you make with facts, of course. You understand the difference between facts and opinion, right?

Do you? I suppose you can prove that (through the link) those are not laws she broke?

You're confused.

It's not my job to "prove" that she didn't break a law. It's your job to prove that she did break a law.

I just did, but now you are calling ass on my source. I'm getting ready to hit the sack, but if you would like, I can look them up for you tomorrow and provide (perhaps) a link that proves my source correct.

No, you didn't. You posted a blog post in which someone else tried to argue that Hillary Clinton broke the law.

I can't have a conversation here with the author of your blog post. I can, on the other hand, have a conversation with you.

So do your homework, and when you wake up we can continue the conversation.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The 3 U.S. Criminal Laws Hillary Broke with Her Email

While that is a delightfully retarded blog you've managed to come up with, I'd much prefer if you tried to use your own words, rather than vomit up something you googled.

And if I used my own words you would then be asking me for a link. Just wanted to beat you to the punch.

I will ask you for a link to back up any factual claims you make, of course.

But you've linked to opinion, not facts.

I don't want someone else's opinion, I'm asking for your opinion.

You should expect to back up any claims you make with facts, of course. You understand the difference between facts and opinion, right?

Do you? I suppose you can prove that (through the link) those are not laws she broke?

You're confused.

It's not my job to "prove" that she didn't break a law. It's your job to prove that she did break a law.

Damn this is getting embarrassing for a mod

 

[Dale Smith]

Once again you want the Nanny state to tell you what you can and not can do..


That's pathetic ...

Do you have a soul?

I'm going to try one more time, and if you don't get it then, I'm just going to give up, because you're too fucking stupid to live.

You are talking about feelings and morals - what you think people should do.

I am talking about the law. The law is not about what people should do. It's about what our society has decided people will be punished for doing.

What you should do, or not do, is a personal decision. Everyone is entitled to their own moral compass.

What the law says is not a personal decision. It's written down, in very specific ways, and it's the same for everyone. We don't, as a state, punish people in this country based on feelings. We punish people based on the law.

Now, if you think that a crime was committed during the "tarmac incident", it shouldn't be hard for you to tell me what law was broken.

If you don't think a crime was committed, but still feel that something morally wrong happened, that's fine. Just say so, and we'll move on.

Abusing the FISA courts and then using a third party vendor to bypass FISA judges in order to illegally spy on your political opponents doesn't violate a litany of criminal and civil acts, statutes, codes and ordinances? Is THAT your stance?

I think you might be lost. The "memo" thread is thataway --->

Doc, you are a joke......seriously. You are proof positive that not all clowns are seeking a circus or rodeo gig. You suck at debating and you have all the traits of a troll that specializes in "gaslighting".

Blah blah blah. I've heard this song before.

Do you want to address the topic of this thread, or not?

I believe that I have, "Doc"........your inability to comprehend what I have posted isn't my responsibility. It's not my job to take you by your little hand and show you all the acts, statutes and codes that were violated by the prior admin that used the FISA courts and third party surveillance entities to gather "intel" on their political enemies. It should be obvious for someone even as dense as you appear to be that this was a breach of sacred trust.

 

[westwall]

Little room for doubt. Prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law and make them an example for all to see.

Was Lynch coordinating with Comey in the Clinton investigation?

Prosecute them for what law?

Title and Chapter, please.

Unless you're full of shit, of course.

Obstruction of Justice for starters. But that seems sort of obvious. Don't you think?

There are at least 6 different sections of the US Code that address what could be called "Obstruction of Justice". Which are you referring to?

18 USC 1503 springs immediately to mind. Though a case can be made for 18 USC 1505 as well based on the 33,000 deleted emails while under subpoena.

Ok, we'll start with 1503.

(a) Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a trial of a criminal case, and the act in violation of this section involves the threat of physical force or physical force, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.

Do you have evidence of these "threats" or "force"? Who do you believe threatened who? What juror or officer of the court are you referring to?

1505 is essentially the same thing, except for administrative or congressional investigations. Same questions as above.

Threats is only one aspect of the crime. I refer you specifically to

or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, or corruptly or by threats or force

 

[westwall]

18 USC 1503 springs immediately to mind. Though a case can be made for 18 USC 1505 as well based on the 33,000 deleted emails while under subpoena.

Ok, we'll start with 1503.

(a) Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a trial of a criminal case, and the act in violation of this section involves the threat of physical force or physical force, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.

Do you have evidence of these "threats" or "force"? Who do you believe threatened who? What juror or officer of the court are you referring to?

1505 is essentially the same thing, except for administrative or congressional investigations. Same questions as above.

Threats or force aren't the only ways that one obstructs. Surely you have to know that.

What I know is that our laws - particularly our criminal laws - are very specifically written in statute to enumerate the exact elements of a crime that need to be proven.

I asked for the Title and Chapter of the law you guys believe was broken. This is what I was given.

Can you make an argument that any actions of Lynch, Comey, either Clinton, or anyone else involved meets those elements?

It depends on what was said on the clinton-lynch tarmac meeting.

So, you don't have any actual evidence that a crime was committed, you just have a narrative that you've come up with.

33,000 emails, deleted while under subpoena, is prima facie evidence of a crime.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Prosecute them for what law?

Title and Chapter, please.

Unless you're full of shit, of course.

Obstruction of Justice for starters. But that seems sort of obvious. Don't you think?

There are at least 6 different sections of the US Code that address what could be called "Obstruction of Justice". Which are you referring to?

18 USC 1503 springs immediately to mind. Though a case can be made for 18 USC 1505 as well based on the 33,000 deleted emails while under subpoena.

Ok, we'll start with 1503.

(a) Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a trial of a criminal case, and the act in violation of this section involves the threat of physical force or physical force, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.

Do you have evidence of these "threats" or "force"? Who do you believe threatened who? What juror or officer of the court are you referring to?

1505 is essentially the same thing, except for administrative or congressional investigations. Same questions as above.

Threats is only one aspect of the crime. I refer you specifically to

or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, or corruptly or by threats or force

Is it just me or is he getting so upset that...

SHe will take his ball and go home?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Ok, we'll start with 1503.

(a) Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a trial of a criminal case, and the act in violation of this section involves the threat of physical force or physical force, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.

Do you have evidence of these "threats" or "force"? Who do you believe threatened who? What juror or officer of the court are you referring to?

1505 is essentially the same thing, except for administrative or congressional investigations. Same questions as above.

Threats or force aren't the only ways that one obstructs. Surely you have to know that.

What I know is that our laws - particularly our criminal laws - are very specifically written in statute to enumerate the exact elements of a crime that need to be proven.

I asked for the Title and Chapter of the law you guys believe was broken. This is what I was given.

Can you make an argument that any actions of Lynch, Comey, either Clinton, or anyone else involved meets those elements?

It depends on what was said on the clinton-lynch tarmac meeting.

So, you don't have any actual evidence that a crime was committed, you just have a narrative that you've come up with.

33,000 emails, deleted while under subpoena is prima facie evidence of a crime.

What crime?

"Contempt of Congress" is the only one I can think of.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Threats or force aren't the only ways that one obstructs. Surely you have to know that.

What I know is that our laws - particularly our criminal laws - are very specifically written in statute to enumerate the exact elements of a crime that need to be proven.

I asked for the Title and Chapter of the law you guys believe was broken. This is what I was given.

Can you make an argument that any actions of Lynch, Comey, either Clinton, or anyone else involved meets those elements?

It depends on what was said on the clinton-lynch tarmac meeting.

So, you don't have any actual evidence that a crime was committed, you just have a narrative that you've come up with.

33,000 emails, deleted while under subpoena is prima facie evidence of a crime.

What crime?

"Contempt of Congress" is the only one I can think of.

Obstruction of justice..

 

[Wyatt earp]

What I know is that our laws - particularly our criminal laws - are very specifically written in statute to enumerate the exact elements of a crime that need to be proven.

I asked for the Title and Chapter of the law you guys believe was broken. This is what I was given.

Can you make an argument that any actions of Lynch, Comey, either Clinton, or anyone else involved meets those elements?

It depends on what was said on the clinton-lynch tarmac meeting.

So, you don't have any actual evidence that a crime was committed, you just have a narrative that you've come up with.

33,000 emails, deleted while under subpoena is prima facie evidence of a crime.

What crime?

"Contempt of Congress" is the only one I can think of.

Obstruction of justice..

Times a million

 

[westwall]

Threats or force aren't the only ways that one obstructs. Surely you have to know that.

What I know is that our laws - particularly our criminal laws - are very specifically written in statute to enumerate the exact elements of a crime that need to be proven.

I asked for the Title and Chapter of the law you guys believe was broken. This is what I was given.

Can you make an argument that any actions of Lynch, Comey, either Clinton, or anyone else involved meets those elements?

It depends on what was said on the clinton-lynch tarmac meeting.

So, you don't have any actual evidence that a crime was committed, you just have a narrative that you've come up with.

33,000 emails, deleted while under subpoena is prima facie evidence of a crime.

What crime?

"Contempt of Congress" is the only one I can think of.

Changing the wording of the investigation result from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless" is an example of a government official engaging in corrupt actions which clearly falls under the Statute. The aforementioned deletion of emails while they were under subpoena is likewise a example of a government official acting in a CORRUPT manner. I don't know how much more plain it can be made to you, but using the REASONABLE PERSON standard as a guide tells this person that just like a doctor who aids a injured person, and is thus held to a higher standard than a regular civilian, the SECRETARY of STATE would likewise be held to a higher standard, especially given the knowledge that she was REQUIRED to sign a document stating that she understood the laws pertaining to the usage, and keeping of classified material.

That's about as basic as I can make it for you.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Prosecute them for what law?

Title and Chapter, please.

Unless you're full of shit, of course.

Obstruction of Justice for starters. But that seems sort of obvious. Don't you think?

There are at least 6 different sections of the US Code that address what could be called "Obstruction of Justice". Which are you referring to?

18 USC 1503 springs immediately to mind. Though a case can be made for 18 USC 1505 as well based on the 33,000 deleted emails while under subpoena.

Ok, we'll start with 1503.

(a) Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a trial of a criminal case, and the act in violation of this section involves the threat of physical force or physical force, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.

Do you have evidence of these "threats" or "force"? Who do you believe threatened who? What juror or officer of the court are you referring to?

1505 is essentially the same thing, except for administrative or congressional investigations. Same questions as above.

Threats is only one aspect of the crime. I refer you specifically to

or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, or corruptly or by threats or force

Ok, that's a good starting point. First, which "officer" are you referring to?

Second, the legal definition of "corruption" is:

he/she asks, demands, solicits, accepts, or agrees to receive anything of value in return for being influenced in the performance of their official duties

Public corruption

What was demanded, solicited, accepted or agreed to? What was "recieved"? Who made the deal?

How do you prove the quid pro quo?

 

[Billy_Bob]

I just wasted 30 minuets reading. the doc goes round in circles and fails miserably to disprove any ones legal understanding. It seems that the doctor, is not in...

The Clinton's and their cabal have violated no less than 30 federal laws and committed Sedition and Treason against the US Constitution.

The evidence is now overwhelming that the special prosecutor was placed due to false pretense and false witness to obtain a FISA warrant, under oath.

An Official request is being drafted by the DOJ to have the SCOTUS review the process and service papers for the FISA warrants that were issued. This move could strip all powers from Mueller and the whole of the investigation is now in criminal prosecution jeopardy.

A finding of "intentional deception to obtain judicial process" by the high court could lead about 45 people into court for deception/fraud to obtain a sealed warrant and into serious prison time. Each count is worth 10 years in federal prison.. I am told there are about 90 counts...

This time bomb is about to blow up in democrat faces.. THE BREAD CRUMB TRAILS OF COLLUSION AND TREASON ARE MASSIVE IN NUMBER.

And just for kicks, the NSA has been ordered to produce and protect all recorded communications in storage from the electronic devices of our federal employee's by the House Intelligence committee. I'm betting we find the missing texts and data in short order..

 

[westwall]

Obstruction of Justice for starters. But that seems sort of obvious. Don't you think?

There are at least 6 different sections of the US Code that address what could be called "Obstruction of Justice". Which are you referring to?

18 USC 1503 springs immediately to mind. Though a case can be made for 18 USC 1505 as well based on the 33,000 deleted emails while under subpoena.

Ok, we'll start with 1503.

(a) Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a trial of a criminal case, and the act in violation of this section involves the threat of physical force or physical force, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.

Do you have evidence of these "threats" or "force"? Who do you believe threatened who? What juror or officer of the court are you referring to?

1505 is essentially the same thing, except for administrative or congressional investigations. Same questions as above.

Threats is only one aspect of the crime. I refer you specifically to

or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, or corruptly or by threats or force

Ok, that's a good starting point. First, which "officer" are you referring to?

Second, the legal definition of "corruption" is:

he/she asks, demands, solicits, accepts, or agrees to receive anything of value in return for being influenced in the performance of their official duties

Public corruption

What was demanded, solicited, accepted or agreed to? What was "recieved"? Who made the deal?

How do you prove the quid pro quo?

Strzok, Comey, Hillary, Huma, McCabe for starters. Those are the ones I can see that have committed crimes, and actively worked to cover them up.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Very few people are aware that the FISA courts are overseen by Chief Justice John Roberts.. He could very easily demand to see all information without a request.

 

[Wyatt earp]

There are at least 6 different sections of the US Code that address what could be called "Obstruction of Justice". Which are you referring to?

18 USC 1503 springs immediately to mind. Though a case can be made for 18 USC 1505 as well based on the 33,000 deleted emails while under subpoena.

Ok, we'll start with 1503.

(a) Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a trial of a criminal case, and the act in violation of this section involves the threat of physical force or physical force, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.

Do you have evidence of these "threats" or "force"? Who do you believe threatened who? What juror or officer of the court are you referring to?

1505 is essentially the same thing, except for administrative or congressional investigations. Same questions as above.

Threats is only one aspect of the crime. I refer you specifically to

or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, or corruptly or by threats or force

Ok, that's a good starting point. First, which "officer" are you referring to?

Second, the legal definition of "corruption" is:

he/she asks, demands, solicits, accepts, or agrees to receive anything of value in return for being influenced in the performance of their official duties

Public corruption

What was demanded, solicited, accepted or agreed to? What was "recieved"? Who made the deal?

How do you prove the quid pro quo?

Strzok, Comey, Hillary, Huma, McCabe for starters. Those are the ones I can see that have committed crimes, and actively worked to cover them up.

That's messed up when you think about it and no one wants to touch them .

 

[westwall]

18 USC 1503 springs immediately to mind. Though a case can be made for 18 USC 1505 as well based on the 33,000 deleted emails while under subpoena.

Ok, we'll start with 1503.

(a) Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a trial of a criminal case, and the act in violation of this section involves the threat of physical force or physical force, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.

Do you have evidence of these "threats" or "force"? Who do you believe threatened who? What juror or officer of the court are you referring to?

1505 is essentially the same thing, except for administrative or congressional investigations. Same questions as above.

Threats is only one aspect of the crime. I refer you specifically to

or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, or corruptly or by threats or force

Ok, that's a good starting point. First, which "officer" are you referring to?

Second, the legal definition of "corruption" is:

he/she asks, demands, solicits, accepts, or agrees to receive anything of value in return for being influenced in the performance of their official duties

Public corruption

What was demanded, solicited, accepted or agreed to? What was "recieved"? Who made the deal?

How do you prove the quid pro quo?

Strzok, Comey, Hillary, Huma, McCabe for starters. Those are the ones I can see that have committed crimes, and actively worked to cover them up.

That's messed up when you think about it and no one wants to touch them .

Yes indeed. These people I would have no problem indicting right now. I could build a compelling case just based on what has been reported to have occurred. There has been no effort on the part of the FBI to refute the claims made in the media, they have just ignored them. Given a few months time, and some non corrupt FBI agents, I have zero doubt that I can find all the evidence I need to prosecute every one of these people for crimes ranging from official corruption, to obstruction of justice to influence peddling. Oh yeah, toss in bribery as well.

 

[westwall]

Obstruction of Justice for starters. But that seems sort of obvious. Don't you think?

There are at least 6 different sections of the US Code that address what could be called "Obstruction of Justice". Which are you referring to?

18 USC 1503 springs immediately to mind. Though a case can be made for 18 USC 1505 as well based on the 33,000 deleted emails while under subpoena.

Ok, we'll start with 1503.

(a) Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a trial of a criminal case, and the act in violation of this section involves the threat of physical force or physical force, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.

Do you have evidence of these "threats" or "force"? Who do you believe threatened who? What juror or officer of the court are you referring to?

1505 is essentially the same thing, except for administrative or congressional investigations. Same questions as above.

Threats is only one aspect of the crime. I refer you specifically to

or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, or corruptly or by threats or force

Ok, that's a good starting point. First, which "officer" are you referring to?

Second, the legal definition of "corruption" is:

he/she asks, demands, solicits, accepts, or agrees to receive anything of value in return for being influenced in the performance of their official duties

Public corruption

What was demanded, solicited, accepted or agreed to? What was "recieved"? Who made the deal?

How do you prove the quid pro quo?

Mccabes wife received over 650,000 dollars from a friend of clinton for her political campaign. Mccabe, of course, was in charge of the clinton email investigation. That's a pretty compelling quid pro quo don't you think?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

What I know is that our laws - particularly our criminal laws - are very specifically written in statute to enumerate the exact elements of a crime that need to be proven.

I asked for the Title and Chapter of the law you guys believe was broken. This is what I was given.

Can you make an argument that any actions of Lynch, Comey, either Clinton, or anyone else involved meets those elements?

It depends on what was said on the clinton-lynch tarmac meeting.

So, you don't have any actual evidence that a crime was committed, you just have a narrative that you've come up with.

33,000 emails, deleted while under subpoena is prima facie evidence of a crime.

What crime?

"Contempt of Congress" is the only one I can think of.

Changing the wording of the investigation result from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless" is an example of a government official engaging in corrupt actions which clearly falls under the Statute. The aforementioned deletion of emails while they were under subpoena is likewise a example of a government official acting in a CORRUPT manner. I don't know how much more plain it can be made to you, but using the REASONABLE PERSON standard as a guide tells this person that just like a doctor who aids a injured person, and is thus held to a higher standard than a regular civilian, the SECRETARY of STATE would likewise be held to a higher standard, especially given the knowledge that she was REQUIRED to sign a document stating that she understood the laws pertaining to the usage, and keeping of classified material.

That's about as basic as I can make it for you.

Changing the wording in the statement didn't change anything. That was a matter of rhetoric.

The reason why the FBI opted to not recommend charges against Hillary wasn't because of the words that Comey used in his statement - it was that only one person in history has ever been charged under that 18 U.S. Code § 793(f) absent specific intent.

The root of this is the idea that § 793(f) was unconstitutionally vague. As the only section of the Espionage Act that did not require intent as a statutory element, the courts were mixed on how to apply it in cases where intent wasn't proven. Only one such case ever ended up being prosecuted - and even in that case, the plaintiff was already known to be in the employ of a hostile foreign power.

If it wasn't already clear, in 1941, the SCOTUS ruled on a § 793(f) case called Gorin v. United States, in which the court held that without proof of intent, the definition of "against the national interest" was unconstitutionally vague.