The One Question No One So Far Can Answer

[radical right]

No law was broken by firing Comey. Comey testified himself that Hillary broke the law and that he failed to carry out his duty and responsibilities as Director of the FBI. 'Nuff justification to fire him. 'Nuff said.

Please stay on topic..

I DID stay on topic. In your 'fantasy' no law was broken. No law was broken by firing Comey, either. It was justified.

Comey also said that even if the law was broken there was no criminal intent, needed to get a conviction. Think of it like the person who drops a ten dollar bill, being cited for littering.

 

[radical right]

Just saying, treason is a very high bar to meet, and I don't think todays climate would qualify. But as an aside, when we were in a hot war in Iraq a US senator committed real treason when he stood in the well of the senate and said "the surge has failed, the war is lost". Did you call for his head?

.

You obviously haven't read the US Constitution, it specifically gives a senator the constitutional right to do just that.

 

[OKTexas]

I've posed this hypothetical question to a couple of members and so far no one seems up to the task of providing an answer. So now I'm posing it the whole board.

Ok, here's a hypothetical scenario. Let's say a Trump associate spoke to a Russian representative. The Russian told him we have some really bad shit on the hildabitch and the representative said wow, it would sure help us if you released it on Tuesday and they did exactly that.

Tell me, what specific law would have been broken? Don't give me an opinion, quote the law.

Any takers?

.

"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

Try to spin that as benign - colluding with a foreign power interfere in our democratic institutions is an act of treason.

Can that be alleged? Yep. Can it be proved is the question.

So you're saying a recognized state of war exist between the US and Russia? Really?

.

Don't tell me or anyone what they're saying unless they say it. Otherwise you assertion is not an opinion, it is a logical fallacy and an incredulous statement.

Do you deny a cold war exists today between Russia and the US? But that was not the point of my post, colluding with Russia on an effort to elect someone to our highest office is providing them aid and comfort; failing to fully investigate the matter - to indict or to exculpate - is misfeasance at best and nonfeasance, as seen by the recent speech by Senator Leader McConnell in his partisan and contumelies affronts to the Constitution of the US.

Just saying, treason is a very high bar to meet, and I don't think todays climate would qualify. But as an aside, when we were in a hot war in Iraq a US senator committed real treason when he stood in the well of the senate and said "the surge has failed, the war is lost". Did you call for his head?

.

No, but how is that relevant? If he did so, which I don't recall and you didn't provide a link, it would have been done in public.

Treason is a high burden, making the allegation requires thoughtful and considered judgments. In the context of my remark, I pointed out McConnell, not for Treason - but IMO maybe only - for being very close in his remarks to Misprision of Treason.

see: 18 U.S. Code § 2382 - Misprision of treason

"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both."

Maybe that's a reach, but this seems to be on point:

"Whoever 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 and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

"Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both."

See: 18 U.S. Code § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

Given that McConnell may owe allegiance to President Trump (who appointed McConnell's Wife to his cabinet) how can we trust McConnell's comments are not built on a foundation of a conflict of interest?

Did I miss a link on McConnell's comments, I not aware of any allegations against him for trying to impede any investigation.

.

 

[radical right]

Did I miss a link on McConnell's comments, I not aware of any allegations against him for trying to impede any investigation.

.

Trump just fired Archibald Cox.

 

[danielpalos]

18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

You're welcome!

What's the "offence," douche bag? All you conspiracy theorists keep failing to come up with anything legitimate.

Having nothing but social plans instead of the fine capital plans, a one percenter, should Always have.

 

[radical right]

Just saying, treason is a very high bar to meet, and I don't think todays climate would qualify. But as an aside, when we were in a hot war in Iraq a US senator committed real treason when he stood in the well of the senate and said "the surge has failed, the war is lost". Did you call for his head?

.

You obviously haven't read the US Constitution, it specifically gives a senator the constitutional right to do just that.

 

[easyt65]

Comey also said that even if the law was broken there was no criminal intent, needed to get a conviction. Think of it like the person who drops a ten dollar bill, being cited for littering.

You are trying to compare Hillary compromising national security while violating several laws regarding the handling of Classified information to someone dropping a $10 bill?


1. No, Comey said Hillary was too stupid to know she was breaking the law and jeopardizing national security...as in 'had no idea she was doing it'.

This leads to #2....

2. Comey has no friggin' idea - is incapable of deciding what Hillary's intent was...but it is pretty easy to prove Comey is completely WRONG in his OPINION that Hillary didn't know what she was doing.
- Hillary had received training
- Hillary acknowledged the warning NOT to use personal servers and e-mails
- Hillary warned her own State Department personnel NOT to do what SHE DID
- Hillary warned her people how all records must be kept according to the FOIA and Federal Records Act, so she KNEW all of her own e-mails/documents/etc had to be saved.

She was NOT ignorant of the law, as Comey opined in his testimony. She knew damn-well she was using her server/personal e-mail to get around the FOIA and Federal Records Act.

3. Even if, let's say for snowflake argument, that Hillary had no clue what she was doing was illegal, FBI Director James Comey KNOWS that ignorance of the law is not a legal defense for breaking the law. EVEN IF Hillary did not know she was breaking the law while doing so, according to the law she is still GUILTY of breaking the law.

Ignorantia juris non excusat:
"Ignorantia juris non excusat or ignorantia legis neminem excusat (Latin for "ignorance of the law excuses not" and "ignorance of law excuses no one" respectively) is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because one was unaware"...

Presumed knowledge of the law is the principle in jurisprudence that one is bound by a law even if one does not know of it. It has also been defined as the "prohibition of ignorance of the law".

-- Ignorantia juris non excusat - Wikipedia

4. Comey admitted under oath before Congress that he KNEW she broke the law and also admitted he exercised powers he did NOT have as a Director of the FBI. He, by virtue of his own opinion, knew Hillary had broken the law but decided to be judge / jury - refused to reveal the fact that she broke the law and then recommend indictment. COMEY (or Obama / Lynch pulling his strings) PROTECTED HILLARY FROM INDICTMENT!


We now know Hillary DID break the law, and we now know Comey failed to carry out his duties and responsibilities as Director of the FBI by refusing to appropriately recommend indictment and that charges be filed!

 

[OKTexas]

"On Wednesday, one of the most powerful lawmakers in Washington, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), basically flat-out said he wouldn't support a special investigation. The various committees in Congress already looking into Russian meddling will suffice, he said: “Today we'll no doubt hear calls for a new investigation, which could only serve to impede the current work being done.”
www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/10/mitch-mcconnell-just-shut-down-any-hopes-democrats-had-of-an-independent-russia-investigation/?utm_term=.9aeff353b02d

Does McConnell have a conflict of interest? His wife is a member of Trump's cabinet. Is McConnell protecting him in a classic quid pro quo?

There's already investigations in both houses of congress and the FBI, it would take months for a special prosecutor to get up to the point where these investigations already are. I know you folks want to drag this thing out as far as you can, and politicize it as much as possible, but why reinvent the wheel? Do you lack faith in the FBI and the dems on the committees?

.

 

[radical right]

Comey also said that even if the law was broken there was no criminal intent, needed to get a conviction. .

1. No, Comey said Hillary was too stupid to know she was breaking the law and jeopardizing national security...as in 'had no idea she was doing it'.

You just posted a full agreement with my statement. Whether from incompetence, or inability to know right from wrong, there was no criminal intent, proof of which is needed to get a conviction.

 

[radical right]

There's already investigations in both houses of congress and the FBI, it would take months for a special prosecutor to get up to the point where these investigations already are. I know you folks want to drag this thing out as far as you can, and politicize it as much as possible, but why reinvent the wheel? Do you lack faith in the FBI and the dems on the committees?

.

Whitewater?

 

[OKTexas]

Just saying, treason is a very high bar to meet, and I don't think todays climate would qualify. But as an aside, when we were in a hot war in Iraq a US senator committed real treason when he stood in the well of the senate and said "the surge has failed, the war is lost". Did you call for his head?

.

You obviously haven't read the US Constitution, it specifically gives a senator the constitutional right to do just that.

You might want to look at the exceptions in Article 1, Section 6, they are not protected form treasonous speech.

.

 

[radical right]

Do you lack faith in the FBI and the dems on the committees?

.

The democrats have no ability to subpoena evidence, compel witnesses, to schedule hearings, or chose the direction of the investigations.

 

[radical right]

You might want to look at the exceptions in Article 1, Section 6, they are not protected form treasonous speech.

.

Section 6
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their
Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United
States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the
Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of
their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for
any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

You're confusing the clause after the comma, with the one after the semi colon.

 

[OKTexas]

Do you lack faith in the FBI and the dems on the committees?

.

The democrats have no ability to subpoena evidence, compel witnesses, to schedule hearings, or chose the direction of the investigations.

So what have they wanted to see, or what people do they want to talk to that have been denied.

.

 

[easyt65]

You just posted a full agreement with my statement. Whether from incompetence, or inability to know right from wrong, there was no criminal intent, proof of which is needed to get a conviction.

WRONG, but nice try.

It is your - and Comey's - OPINION that there was no criminal intent on Hillary Clinton's part. You have as much of a right to make that DECISION on your own as Comey did. That DECISION needed to be made during a trial after an indictment and charges were filed due to the fact that laws were broken.

"Ignorantia juris non excusat" - AGAIN, according to the LAW, it does not matter if Hillary really was that stupid, did not know, and / or did not intend to break the law. SHE DID. Stupidity and lack of intent is not a defense for breaking the law. 'I did not mean to break the law' might help the defendant at the time of SENTENCING but is not a legal defense of guilt or innocence.

HILLARY BROKE THE LAW. COMEY CONFIRMED IT. COMEY DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT OR AUTHORITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE FBI NOT TO RECOMMENT INDICTMENT / CHARGES BE FILED!

 

[radical right]

So what have they wanted to see, or what people do they want to talk to that have been denied.

.

I'm glad you asked. The democrats want to see Trumps tax returns.

 

[Ame®icano]

The Information was obtained by breaking the law by hacking the DNC servers...To then use that to gain advantage is collusion with that crime.

1. To my knowledge there has never been evidence presented that Russians actually hacked the servers. The FBI never looked at the servers.

2. Russians approaching the Trump team AFTER they had hacked the servers, if they did, does not constitute a crime on behalf of the Trump team. The Trump team did not 'collude' to hack the servers. In this scenario the team would have been offered 'stolen goods'.

3. The only information that was supposedly hacked was the 'revelation' that DNC members' e-mails contained racist / sexist / homophobic / anti-Semitic jokes/comments AND that the DNC rigged their primaries, engaged in voter fraud during their primaries, and helped Hillary cheat in debates. While embarrassing, it's not like any of this was a huge shock to anyone. This is more of a 'self-inflicted wound' than something the Russians did to Hillary and the DNC.

But, since it's the only reason for Hillary to have lost the election that does not involve Hillary being a terrible candidate and their ideas to be unappealing to the electorate, they cling bitterly to it. 20 years from now, some will still be claiming "it was da Roosians, I tells ya", just like some are still bemoaning Algore's loss in 2000.

Why then were the Trump supporters around here unanimously certain that the wikileaks revelations were bringing Hillary down?

Some were, I wasn't. That's where your assertion of unanimity reveals a fatal flaw in your "reasoning" process. I declared several times that she would never be indicted because she was too connected and knew where the bodies were buried. A less well connected person, however, would have been.

I'm talking about the election. You honestly believed at the time that the wikileaks revelations would do NO HARM WHATSOEVER to Hillary's chances of winning?

You honestly believe that any negative revelation about Hillary would change opinion about her among the Americans, especially among those on the left?

 

[radical right]

It is your - and Comey's - OPINION that there was no criminal intent on Hillary Clinton's part.

If i'm in agreement with Comey, why did you say that wasn't the case?

I said Comey said, followed by your post confirming that's what Comey said. You're just being argumentative by saying Comey said something DIFFERENT, only to post that Comey and I are in full agreement with what he said.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

Try to spin that as benign - colluding with a foreign power interfere in our democratic institutions is an act of treason.

Can that be alleged? Yep. Can it be proved is the question.

So you're saying a recognized state of war exist between the US and Russia? Really?

.

Don't tell me or anyone what they're saying unless they say it. Otherwise you assertion is not an opinion, it is a logical fallacy and an incredulous statement.

Do you deny a cold war exists today between Russia and the US? But that was not the point of my post, colluding with Russia on an effort to elect someone to our highest office is providing them aid and comfort; failing to fully investigate the matter - to indict or to exculpate - is misfeasance at best and nonfeasance, as seen by the recent speech by Senator Leader McConnell in his partisan and contumelies affronts to the Constitution of the US.

Just saying, treason is a very high bar to meet, and I don't think todays climate would qualify. But as an aside, when we were in a hot war in Iraq a US senator committed real treason when he stood in the well of the senate and said "the surge has failed, the war is lost". Did you call for his head?

.

No, but how is that relevant? If he did so, which I don't recall and you didn't provide a link, it would have been done in public.

Treason is a high burden, making the allegation requires thoughtful and considered judgments. In the context of my remark, I pointed out McConnell, not for Treason - but IMO maybe only - for being very close in his remarks to Misprision of Treason.

see: 18 U.S. Code § 2382 - Misprision of treason

"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both."

Maybe that's a reach, but this seems to be on point:

"Whoever 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 and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

"Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both."

See: 18 U.S. Code § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

Given that McConnell may owe allegiance to President Trump (who appointed McConnell's Wife to his cabinet) how can we trust McConnell's comments are not built on a foundation of a conflict of interest?

Did I miss a link on McConnell's comments, I not aware of any allegations against him for trying to impede any investigation.

.

Then I must infer you live in a cave (metaphorically) and the news you watch is limited to the shadows reflected on its walls:



Now, listen on to the comments by Sen Warren. Without bias, consider her remarks, and consider the number of on going active investigations by the GOP on Behghazi and the E-Mails.

 

[easyt65]

You just posted a full agreement with my statement. Whether from incompetence, or inability to know right from wrong, there was no criminal intent, proof of which is needed to get a conviction.

REVISITING THIS COMMENT:

'Hillary did not intend to break the law'

1. Keep in mind:
- Hillary had training in the definition of / handling of classified and in laws requiring govt employees to save all documents to legally adhere to the FOIA and the Federal Records Act. HILLARY KNEW WHAT THE LAW REQUIRED.

- The WH had warned all of it's agencies not to use private servers / e-mails. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is on record as having warned her own State Department employees of doing this - the very thing she ended up doing. HILLARY KNEW THE LAW AND WHAT IT REQUIRED.

Hillary violated both the FOIA and Federal Records Act by intentionally withholding e-mails and documents.
-- The State Department released to the public on more than one occasion that some of the documents Hillary was forced to turn over during the investigation had NEVER been turned over to them previously. That is the State Department, intentionally or not, throwing Hillary under the bus by pointing out she had violated the FOIA - a CRIME.

2. What Crimes Are You Talking About?
I KNOW you can not be arguing that Hillary Clinton, with all the security training she had received, actually thought that giving her MAID access to classified information was legal, that allowing a small IT company that did not have sufficient security clearances was legally allowed to store her classified server in their highly UN-classified, UN-secured BATHROOM!

There is no way anyone could reasonably argue Hillary did not at least KNOW what she was doing was illegal.