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.
Make a law against what?
Conspiracy? You want to play everything is fair game as long as you follow the law that's what we used to do in jail..
No difference.
I don't know what you're babbling about. Could you try again, in English this time?
I don't speak rap, sorry now address my retort and use critical thinking skills and don't play the spelling and grammar game..
It makes you look stupid.
What "retort" do you think that you've made?
The one you refuse to address.
I don't know the exact law of the FBI attempting to interfere in the national election of the President. What was that treason statute number again?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.
You know quack it's funny how they get away with this, yet no republican or Democrat wants to make a law against it..
Why is that because maybe it could back fire on them?
Make a law against what?
Conspiracy? You want to play everything is fair game as long as you follow the law that's what we used to do in jail..
No difference.
I don't know what you're babbling about. Could you try again, in English this time?
I don't speak rap, sorry now address my retort and use critical thinking skills and don't play the spelling and grammar game..
It makes you look stupid.
What "retort" do you think that you've made?
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?
You seem to have misunderstood.
I didn't ask you to repost youtube videos that make you feel warm and fuzzy inside.
I asked for someone to tell me what law was broken, and demonstrate how.
Conspiracy? You want to play everything is fair game as long as you follow the law that's what we used to do in jail..
No difference.
I don't know what you're babbling about. Could you try again, in English this time?
I don't speak rap, sorry now address my retort and use critical thinking skills and don't play the spelling and grammar game..
It makes you look stupid.
What "retort" do you think that you've made?
The one you refuse to address.
I would be happy to address it, if you would tell me what it is.
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.
This was comey:
"I'm not picking on the attorney general, Loretta Lynch, who I like very much, but her meeting with President Clinton on that airplane was the capper for me," he said. "And I then said, 'You know what? The department cannot, by itself, credibly end this."
It depends on what was said. Was comey privy to their tarmac meeting? One can easily deduce that it was about some emails. It depends on what comey knew and what he didn't disseminate or disclose.
Comey was referring to the optics of the meeting, not the content of it.
As for what was said, we can't "deduce" anything - what you're doing is coming up with a story, and then saying "that sounds believable".
I don't have a story or narrative. Yes, conclusions based on a perceived notion is not proof. But again, it depends on what comey knew from lynch. Oh, one other thing, you don't have to put quotes around my words. Thats junior high stuff.
When I put quotes around your words, it's usually my way of indicating that I believe you're using those words incorrectly.
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?
You seem to have misunderstood.
I didn't ask you to repost youtube videos that make you feel warm and fuzzy inside.
I asked for someone to tell me what law was broken, and demonstrate how.
She had classified US material on her personal server which a high school geek could have broke into. She didn't return government mails back to the state department. She destroyed evidence (tampering with evidence) that was subpoenaed by the US Congress. She forwarded some of those classified emails to her buddy who was not cleared to see such information who shared that laptop with her husband who was sending dick pictures to strangers on the internet.
Can you tell me that anybody outside of their cabal would have gotten away with anything like this?
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?
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?
You seem to have misunderstood.
I didn't ask you to repost youtube videos that make you feel warm and fuzzy inside.
I asked for someone to tell me what law was broken, and demonstrate how.
She had classified US material on her personal server which a high school geek could have broke into. She didn't return government mails back to the state department. She destroyed evidence (tampering with evidence) that was subpoenaed by the US Congress. She forwarded some of those classified emails to her buddy who was not cleared to see such information who shared that laptop with her husband who was sending dick pictures to strangers on the internet.
Can you tell me that anybody outside of their cabal would have gotten away with anything like this?
I don't know the exact law of the FBI attempting to interfere in the national election of the President. What was that treason statute number again?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.
There is no "treason" statute. Treason is defined in the Constitution, not in the Code.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
[Emphasis mine]
You or I would have gone to prison to rot. They play by different rules.
I don't know the exact law of the FBI attempting to interfere in the national election of the President. What was that treason statute number again?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.
18 U.S. Code § 2381 - TreasonI don't know the exact law of the FBI attempting to interfere in the national election of the President. What was that treason statute number again?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.
There is no "treason" statute. Treason is defined in the Constitution, not in the Code.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
[Emphasis mine]
I don't know the exact law of the FBI attempting to interfere in the national election of the President. What was that treason statute number again?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.
There is no "treason" statute. Treason is defined in the Constitution, not in the Code.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
[Emphasis mine]
Once again you are posting like an idiot, so there is no law against this , so I can do it and get away with it.
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?
You seem to have misunderstood.
I didn't ask you to repost youtube videos that make you feel warm and fuzzy inside.
I asked for someone to tell me what law was broken, and demonstrate how.
She had classified US material on her personal server which a high school geek could have broke into. She didn't return government mails back to the state department. She destroyed evidence (tampering with evidence) that was subpoenaed by the US Congress. She forwarded some of those classified emails to her buddy who was not cleared to see such information who shared that laptop with her husband who was sending dick pictures to strangers on the internet.
Can you tell me that anybody outside of their cabal would have gotten away with anything like this?
1. Spillage happens everyday, and no one gets prosecuted for it.
2. By all means, Congress is well within their power to try her for contempt of Congress, if they thought they had a case.
3. Huma Abedin, as Clinton's chief of staff, certainly had clearance to see those documents.
That's almost as funny as the FBI "loosing" all of their texts related to the FBI's effort to get Hillary elected.You or I would have gone to prison to rot. They play by different rules.
Then I'm sure that you can find an example of a single person who has ever been prosecuted under the Espionage Act for unintentional information spillage.
18 U.S. Code § 2381 - TreasonI don't know the exact law of the FBI attempting to interfere in the national election of the President. What was that treason statute number again?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.
There is no "treason" statute. Treason is defined in the Constitution, not in the Code.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
[Emphasis mine]
Attempting a coup against our Constitutional process in selecting our next POTUS. With Russia owning Hillary, this is looking really bad for all Democrats involved. Death penalty case.
I don't know the exact law of the FBI attempting to interfere in the national election of the President. What was that treason statute number again?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.
There is no "treason" statute. Treason is defined in the Constitution, not in the Code.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
[Emphasis mine]
Once again you are posting like an idiot, so there is no law against this , so I can do it and get away with it.
I'm having a hard time following your argument.
Yes, when something is not against the law, you can do it and "get away with it".
That's almost as funny as the FBI "loosing" all of their texts related to the FBI's effort to get Hillary elected.You or I would have gone to prison to rot. They play by different rules.
Then I'm sure that you can find an example of a single person who has ever been prosecuted under the Espionage Act for unintentional information spillage.
I don't know the exact law of the FBI attempting to interfere in the national election of the President. What was that treason statute number again?Prosecute them for what law?
Title and Chapter, please.
Unless you're full of shit, of course.
There is no "treason" statute. Treason is defined in the Constitution, not in the Code.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
[Emphasis mine]
Once again you are posting like an idiot, so there is no law against this , so I can do it and get away with it.
I'm having a hard time following your argument.
Yes, when something is not against the law, you can do it and "get away with it".
Because you are trying to find loop holes, what's so complicated?
