Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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?
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.
Incorrect. Gross negligence is a crime, changing the wording to "extremely careless" makes it no longer a crime. Strzok did that at least twice. That is the very definition of official corruption.. Furthermore "Intent" as a aspect of the crime is a myth. There is no requirement for intent. That was a comey invention.
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?
No, it's not.
McCabe's wife was a Democratic politician. It's far from extraordinary that the same people who donated to Clinton would also donate to her.
The entire idea of Quid Pro Quo is that it has to be proven. Without evidence of an agreed-upon deal between the parties to break the law, there's no crime.
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.
Incorrect. Gross negligence is a crime, changing the wording to "extremely careless" makes it no longer a crime. Strzok did that at least twice. That is the very definition of official corruption.. Furthermore "Intent" as a aspect of the crime is a myth. There is no requirement for intent. That was a comey invention.
Dude, you know that I'm in law school at the moment. Intent, or a comparable mental state, is an element of nearly every crime on the books, aside from the "strict liability" crimes, such as statutory rape. It's a basic part of criminal law - the mens rea.
The Court already ruled on this - absent intent, § 793(f) is unconstitutionally vague. § 793(f) is the only section of the Espionage Act that doesn't specifically enumerate "intent" as a required element.
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?
No, it's not.
McCabe's wife was a Democratic politician. It's far from extraordinary that the same people who donated to Clinton would also donate to her.
The entire idea of Quid Pro Quo is that it has to be proven. Without evidence of an agreed-upon deal between the parties to break the law, there's no crime.
Yeah, it is. Using the Reasonable Person standard, it is as plain as day. Mccabes wife was a complete political novice. No experience, no infrastructure, and she magically gets picked by the biggest Democrat king maker in the State? Get real. Once again, that is called prima facie evidence and it damning.
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?
No, it's not.
McCabe's wife was a Democratic politician. It's far from extraordinary that the same people who donated to Clinton would also donate to her.
The entire idea of Quid Pro Quo is that it has to be proven. Without evidence of an agreed-upon deal between the parties to break the law, there's no crime.
Yeah, it is. Using the Reasonable Person standard, it is as plain as day. Mccabes wife was a complete political novice. No experience, no infrastructure, and she magically gets picked by the biggest Democrat king maker in the State? Get real. Once again, that is called prima facie evidence and it damning.
There are a couple of significant issues with this argument.
First of all, Clinton was not in the Senate at all, let alone "the biggest Democratic kingmaker", in 2015. More importantly, Jill McCabe was running for Virginia State Senate, which is not an institution known for caring much about experience.
Second, she wasn't "picked" by anyone - she just ran. Without the help of the Clinton apparatus. Clinton never donated any money or endorsed Jill McCabe. She got some cash from Terry McAuliffe after she won the primary - but that's not evidence of anything other than the Democratic governor of the state supporting a Democratic candidate for State Senate.
You've created a narrative that isn't backed up by the facts.
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.
Incorrect. Gross negligence is a crime, changing the wording to "extremely careless" makes it no longer a crime. Strzok did that at least twice. That is the very definition of official corruption.. Furthermore "Intent" as a aspect of the crime is a myth. There is no requirement for intent. That was a comey invention.
Dude, you know that I'm in law school at the moment. Intent, or a comparable mental state, is an element of nearly every crime on the books, aside from the "strict liability" crimes, such as statutory rape. It's a basic part of criminal law - the mens rea.
The Court already ruled on this - absent intent, § 793(f) is unconstitutionally vague. § 793(f) is the only section of the Espionage Act that doesn't specifically enumerate "intent" as a required element.
Dude, you're working at becoming an Officer of the Court. I already AM an Officer of the Court. I've been testifying in open court for probably longer than you've been alive. On three continents to boot!
And in this particular case intent is not an aspect of the crime. The Naval seaman who spent a year in jail was tried for the exact same thing that hillary is accused of and he certainly had no intent to commit a crime. You are flat wrong in this case.
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?
No, it's not.
McCabe's wife was a Democratic politician. It's far from extraordinary that the same people who donated to Clinton would also donate to her.
The entire idea of Quid Pro Quo is that it has to be proven. Without evidence of an agreed-upon deal between the parties to break the law, there's no crime.
Yeah, it is. Using the Reasonable Person standard, it is as plain as day. Mccabes wife was a complete political novice. No experience, no infrastructure, and she magically gets picked by the biggest Democrat king maker in the State? Get real. Once again, that is called prima facie evidence and it damning.
There are a couple of significant issues with this argument.
First of all, Clinton was not in the Senate at all, let alone "the biggest Democratic kingmaker", in 2015. More importantly, Jill McCabe was running for Virginia State Senate, which is not an institution known for caring much about experience.
Second, she wasn't "picked" by anyone - she just ran. Without the help of the Clinton apparatus. Clinton never donated any money or endorsed Jill McCabe. She got some cash from Terry McAuliffe after she won the primary - but that's not evidence of anything other than the Democratic governor of the state supporting a Democratic candidate for State Senate.
You've created a narrative that isn't backed up by the facts.
I ain't talking about clinton, I'm talking about Terry McAuliffe. He's the one who gave mccabes wife the cash. Now, who is Terry McAuliffe super dooper ultra close friends with again?
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.
Incorrect. Gross negligence is a crime, changing the wording to "extremely careless" makes it no longer a crime. Strzok did that at least twice. That is the very definition of official corruption.. Furthermore "Intent" as a aspect of the crime is a myth. There is no requirement for intent. That was a comey invention.
Dude, you know that I'm in law school at the moment. Intent, or a comparable mental state, is an element of nearly every crime on the books, aside from the "strict liability" crimes, such as statutory rape. It's a basic part of criminal law - the mens rea.
The Court already ruled on this - absent intent, § 793(f) is unconstitutionally vague. § 793(f) is the only section of the Espionage Act that doesn't specifically enumerate "intent" as a required element.
Dude, you're working at becoming an Officer of the Court. I already AM an Officer of the Court. I've been testifying in open court for probably longer than you've been alive. On three continents to boot!
And in this particular case intent is not an aspect of the crime. The Naval seaman who spent a year in jail was tried for the exact same thing that hillary is accused of and he certainly had no intent to commit a crime. You are flat wrong in this case.
The naval seaman that you're referring to (Kristian Saucier) absolutely "intended" to commit a crime. He didn't "accidentally" take 10 or so pictures of the submarine's classified engine system. He intentionally aimed his smartphone at the engine, and pressed the "Shutter" button - knowing that in doing so, he was violating the law.
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.
Incorrect. Gross negligence is a crime, changing the wording to "extremely careless" makes it no longer a crime. Strzok did that at least twice. That is the very definition of official corruption.. Furthermore "Intent" as a aspect of the crime is a myth. There is no requirement for intent. That was a comey invention.
Dude, you know that I'm in law school at the moment. Intent, or a comparable mental state, is an element of nearly every crime on the books, aside from the "strict liability" crimes, such as statutory rape. It's a basic part of criminal law - the mens rea.
The Court already ruled on this - absent intent, § 793(f) is unconstitutionally vague. § 793(f) is the only section of the Espionage Act that doesn't specifically enumerate "intent" as a required element.
Dude, you're working at becoming an Officer of the Court. I already AM an Officer of the Court. I've been testifying in open court for probably longer than you've been alive. On three continents to boot!
And in this particular case intent is not an aspect of the crime. The Naval seaman who spent a year in jail was tried for the exact same thing that hillary is accused of and he certainly had no intent to commit a crime. You are flat wrong in this case.
The naval seaman that you're referring to (Kristian Saucier) absolutely "intended" to commit a crime. He didn't "accidentally" take 10 or so pictures of the submarine's classified engine system. He intentionally aimed his smartphone at the engine, and pressed the "Shutter" button - knowing that in doing so, he was violating the law.
And hillary intended to place classified documents on her unclassified server. Saucier had no intent to commit a crime. He DID commit the crime, but he was unaware that it was a crime to take those photo's. hillary, as the most "prepared POTUS candidate evah!" clearly DID know it was illegal, and furthermore, the sailor is not held up to nearly the same standard as the Sec of State, yet she was held to a LOWER standard than he was, and there's that little issue of those 33,000 subpoenad emails that were destroyed, along with the 13 blackberries that were hammered into bits. That is prima facie evidence that smacks that Reasonable Person right in the face. Don't ya think?
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?
No, it's not.
McCabe's wife was a Democratic politician. It's far from extraordinary that the same people who donated to Clinton would also donate to her.
The entire idea of Quid Pro Quo is that it has to be proven. Without evidence of an agreed-upon deal between the parties to break the law, there's no crime.
Yeah, it is. Using the Reasonable Person standard, it is as plain as day. Mccabes wife was a complete political novice. No experience, no infrastructure, and she magically gets picked by the biggest Democrat king maker in the State? Get real. Once again, that is called prima facie evidence and it damning.
There are a couple of significant issues with this argument.
First of all, Clinton was not in the Senate at all, let alone "the biggest Democratic kingmaker", in 2015. More importantly, Jill McCabe was running for Virginia State Senate, which is not an institution known for caring much about experience.
Second, she wasn't "picked" by anyone - she just ran. Without the help of the Clinton apparatus. Clinton never donated any money or endorsed Jill McCabe. She got some cash from Terry McAuliffe after she won the primary - but that's not evidence of anything other than the Democratic governor of the state supporting a Democratic candidate for State Senate.
You've created a narrative that isn't backed up by the facts.
I ain't talking about clinton, I'm talking about Terry McAuliffe. He's the one who gave mccabes wife the cash. Now, who is Terry McAuliffe super dooper ultra close friends with again?
The Clintons.
But so is every single Democratic donor in the country.
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.
Incorrect. Gross negligence is a crime, changing the wording to "extremely careless" makes it no longer a crime. Strzok did that at least twice. That is the very definition of official corruption.. Furthermore "Intent" as a aspect of the crime is a myth. There is no requirement for intent. That was a comey invention.
Dude, you know that I'm in law school at the moment. Intent, or a comparable mental state, is an element of nearly every crime on the books, aside from the "strict liability" crimes, such as statutory rape. It's a basic part of criminal law - the mens rea.
The Court already ruled on this - absent intent, § 793(f) is unconstitutionally vague. § 793(f) is the only section of the Espionage Act that doesn't specifically enumerate "intent" as a required element.
Dude, you're working at becoming an Officer of the Court. I already AM an Officer of the Court. I've been testifying in open court for probably longer than you've been alive. On three continents to boot!
And in this particular case intent is not an aspect of the crime. The Naval seaman who spent a year in jail was tried for the exact same thing that hillary is accused of and he certainly had no intent to commit a crime. You are flat wrong in this case.
The naval seaman that you're referring to (Kristian Saucier) absolutely "intended" to commit a crime. He didn't "accidentally" take 10 or so pictures of the submarine's classified engine system. He intentionally aimed his smartphone at the engine, and pressed the "Shutter" button - knowing that in doing so, he was violating the law.
And hillary intended to place classified documents on her unclassified server. Saucier had no intent to commit a crime. He DID commit the crime, but he was unaware that it was a crime to take those photo's. hillary, as the most "prepared POTUS candidate evah!" clearly DID know it was illegal, and furthermore, the sailor is not held up to nearly the same standard as the Sec of State, yet she was held to a LOWER standard than he was, and there's that little issue of those 33,000 subpoenad emails that were destroyed, along with the 13 blackberries that were hammered into bits. That is prima facie evidence that smacks that Reasonable Person right in the face. Don't ya think?
Incorrect. Gross negligence is a crime, changing the wording to "extremely careless" makes it no longer a crime. Strzok did that at least twice. That is the very definition of official corruption.. Furthermore "Intent" as a aspect of the crime is a myth. There is no requirement for intent. That was a comey invention.
Dude, you know that I'm in law school at the moment. Intent, or a comparable mental state, is an element of nearly every crime on the books, aside from the "strict liability" crimes, such as statutory rape. It's a basic part of criminal law - the mens rea.
The Court already ruled on this - absent intent, § 793(f) is unconstitutionally vague. § 793(f) is the only section of the Espionage Act that doesn't specifically enumerate "intent" as a required element.
Dude, you're working at becoming an Officer of the Court. I already AM an Officer of the Court. I've been testifying in open court for probably longer than you've been alive. On three continents to boot!
And in this particular case intent is not an aspect of the crime. The Naval seaman who spent a year in jail was tried for the exact same thing that hillary is accused of and he certainly had no intent to commit a crime. You are flat wrong in this case.
The naval seaman that you're referring to (Kristian Saucier) absolutely "intended" to commit a crime. He didn't "accidentally" take 10 or so pictures of the submarine's classified engine system. He intentionally aimed his smartphone at the engine, and pressed the "Shutter" button - knowing that in doing so, he was violating the law.
And hillary intended to place classified documents on her unclassified server. Saucier had no intent to commit a crime. He DID commit the crime, but he was unaware that it was a crime to take those photo's. hillary, as the most "prepared POTUS candidate evah!" clearly DID know it was illegal, and furthermore, the sailor is not held up to nearly the same standard as the Sec of State, yet she was held to a LOWER standard than he was, and there's that little issue of those 33,000 subpoenad emails that were destroyed, along with the 13 blackberries that were hammered into bits. That is prima facie evidence that smacks that Reasonable Person right in the face. Don't ya think?
Did Hillary "intent" to place classified documents on her unclassified server? That's not the foregone conclusion you act as if it is.
From what I've seen, it could just as easily be explained as spillage. Do you have any conclusive reason to say that it was intentional?
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.
Well sounds like Trump is guilty of that !
Incorrect. Gross negligence is a crime, changing the wording to "extremely careless" makes it no longer a crime. Strzok did that at least twice. That is the very definition of official corruption.. Furthermore "Intent" as a aspect of the crime is a myth. There is no requirement for intent. That was a comey invention.
Dude, you know that I'm in law school at the moment. Intent, or a comparable mental state, is an element of nearly every crime on the books, aside from the "strict liability" crimes, such as statutory rape. It's a basic part of criminal law - the mens rea.
The Court already ruled on this - absent intent, § 793(f) is unconstitutionally vague. § 793(f) is the only section of the Espionage Act that doesn't specifically enumerate "intent" as a required element.
Dude, you're working at becoming an Officer of the Court. I already AM an Officer of the Court. I've been testifying in open court for probably longer than you've been alive. On three continents to boot!
And in this particular case intent is not an aspect of the crime. The Naval seaman who spent a year in jail was tried for the exact same thing that hillary is accused of and he certainly had no intent to commit a crime. You are flat wrong in this case.
The naval seaman that you're referring to (Kristian Saucier) absolutely "intended" to commit a crime. He didn't "accidentally" take 10 or so pictures of the submarine's classified engine system. He intentionally aimed his smartphone at the engine, and pressed the "Shutter" button - knowing that in doing so, he was violating the law.
And hillary intended to place classified documents on her unclassified server. Saucier had no intent to commit a crime. He DID commit the crime, but he was unaware that it was a crime to take those photo's. hillary, as the most "prepared POTUS candidate evah!" clearly DID know it was illegal, and furthermore, the sailor is not held up to nearly the same standard as the Sec of State, yet she was held to a LOWER standard than he was, and there's that little issue of those 33,000 subpoenad emails that were destroyed, along with the 13 blackberries that were hammered into bits. That is prima facie evidence that smacks that Reasonable Person right in the face. Don't ya think?
To add -
"Intention" isn't about knowing that you're breaking the law. It's about doing things on purpose. If you act, with the intention that a result should come from your action, the requirement for intent is satisfied.
Saucier didn't take those pictures by accident, he did it on purpose. That's where the idea of intent comes in.
There's no evidence that Clinton's spillage was intentional.
Dude, you know that I'm in law school at the moment. Intent, or a comparable mental state, is an element of nearly every crime on the books, aside from the "strict liability" crimes, such as statutory rape. It's a basic part of criminal law - the mens rea.
The Court already ruled on this - absent intent, § 793(f) is unconstitutionally vague. § 793(f) is the only section of the Espionage Act that doesn't specifically enumerate "intent" as a required element.
Dude, you're working at becoming an Officer of the Court. I already AM an Officer of the Court. I've been testifying in open court for probably longer than you've been alive. On three continents to boot!
And in this particular case intent is not an aspect of the crime. The Naval seaman who spent a year in jail was tried for the exact same thing that hillary is accused of and he certainly had no intent to commit a crime. You are flat wrong in this case.
The naval seaman that you're referring to (Kristian Saucier) absolutely "intended" to commit a crime. He didn't "accidentally" take 10 or so pictures of the submarine's classified engine system. He intentionally aimed his smartphone at the engine, and pressed the "Shutter" button - knowing that in doing so, he was violating the law.
And hillary intended to place classified documents on her unclassified server. Saucier had no intent to commit a crime. He DID commit the crime, but he was unaware that it was a crime to take those photo's. hillary, as the most "prepared POTUS candidate evah!" clearly DID know it was illegal, and furthermore, the sailor is not held up to nearly the same standard as the Sec of State, yet she was held to a LOWER standard than he was, and there's that little issue of those 33,000 subpoenad emails that were destroyed, along with the 13 blackberries that were hammered into bits. That is prima facie evidence that smacks that Reasonable Person right in the face. Don't ya think?
Did Hillary "intent" to place classified documents on her unclassified server? That's not the foregone conclusion you act as if it is.
From what I've seen, it could just as easily be explained as spillage. Do you have any conclusive reason to say that it was intentional?
Of course she did. There were more than 125 that were classified as Secret as of 2015. The claim that they were retroactively classified is laughable. Emails are Classified by the issuing Agency UPON SENDING. That's how the system works. I have many friends who work in the defense industry and they are bound by the same laws as hillary was.
Dude, you're working at becoming an Officer of the Court. I already AM an Officer of the Court. I've been testifying in open court for probably longer than you've been alive. On three continents to boot!
And in this particular case intent is not an aspect of the crime. The Naval seaman who spent a year in jail was tried for the exact same thing that hillary is accused of and he certainly had no intent to commit a crime. You are flat wrong in this case.
The naval seaman that you're referring to (Kristian Saucier) absolutely "intended" to commit a crime. He didn't "accidentally" take 10 or so pictures of the submarine's classified engine system. He intentionally aimed his smartphone at the engine, and pressed the "Shutter" button - knowing that in doing so, he was violating the law.
And hillary intended to place classified documents on her unclassified server. Saucier had no intent to commit a crime. He DID commit the crime, but he was unaware that it was a crime to take those photo's. hillary, as the most "prepared POTUS candidate evah!" clearly DID know it was illegal, and furthermore, the sailor is not held up to nearly the same standard as the Sec of State, yet she was held to a LOWER standard than he was, and there's that little issue of those 33,000 subpoenad emails that were destroyed, along with the 13 blackberries that were hammered into bits. That is prima facie evidence that smacks that Reasonable Person right in the face. Don't ya think?
Did Hillary "intent" to place classified documents on her unclassified server? That's not the foregone conclusion you act as if it is.
From what I've seen, it could just as easily be explained as spillage. Do you have any conclusive reason to say that it was intentional?
Of course she did. There were more than 125 that were classified as Secret as of 2015. The claim that they were retroactively classified is laughable. Emails are Classified by the issuing Agency UPON SENDING. That's how the system works. I have many friends who work in the defense industry and they are bound by the same laws as hillary was.
Emails sent over the regular internet are never classified upon sending. The regular internet is not secure enough for classified information - Intentionally transmitting classified information via email is against the law.
Classified information is only disseminated via SCIF.
Sometimes, when you've got the clearance, you learn something in a SCIF that you later offhandedly mention in a regular email. That's called "spillage" - and that's what happened with Hillary Clinton.
The naval seaman that you're referring to (Kristian Saucier) absolutely "intended" to commit a crime. He didn't "accidentally" take 10 or so pictures of the submarine's classified engine system. He intentionally aimed his smartphone at the engine, and pressed the "Shutter" button - knowing that in doing so, he was violating the law.
And hillary intended to place classified documents on her unclassified server. Saucier had no intent to commit a crime. He DID commit the crime, but he was unaware that it was a crime to take those photo's. hillary, as the most "prepared POTUS candidate evah!" clearly DID know it was illegal, and furthermore, the sailor is not held up to nearly the same standard as the Sec of State, yet she was held to a LOWER standard than he was, and there's that little issue of those 33,000 subpoenad emails that were destroyed, along with the 13 blackberries that were hammered into bits. That is prima facie evidence that smacks that Reasonable Person right in the face. Don't ya think?
Did Hillary "intent" to place classified documents on her unclassified server? That's not the foregone conclusion you act as if it is.
From what I've seen, it could just as easily be explained as spillage. Do you have any conclusive reason to say that it was intentional?
Of course she did. There were more than 125 that were classified as Secret as of 2015. The claim that they were retroactively classified is laughable. Emails are Classified by the issuing Agency UPON SENDING. That's how the system works. I have many friends who work in the defense industry and they are bound by the same laws as hillary was.
Emails sent over the regular internet are never classified upon sending. The regular internet is not secure enough for classified information - Intentionally transmitting classified information via email is against the law.
Classified information is only disseminated via SCIF.
Sometimes, when you've got the clearance, you learn something in a SCIF that you later offhandedly mention in a regular email. That's called "spillage" - and that's what happened with Hillary Clinton.
They ABSOLUTELY are. You need to check up on the classification process. The SENDER classifies ALL communications immediately upon transmission. This is not a guess on my part. This is a fact.
