The One Question No One So Far Can Answer

[radical right]

COMEY DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT OR AUTHORITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE FBI NOT TO RECOMMENT INDICTMENT / CHARGES BE FILED!

The very definition of his position gives him the authority to chose what the FBI pursues or chooses not to. The FBI doesn't have unlimited resources, and the chief executive gets to chose where those limited resources are used.

 

[easyt65]

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 could care less what you agree to or not. I am saying Comey failed to do his job. He testified Hillary broke the law then declared he did not recommend indictment because (it was his opinion) Hillary was too stupid to know she was breaking the law. I then provided evidence to prove even Comey is smart enough to know better that that....not to mention it does not matter what Hillary knew or did not know. Ignorance is not a legal defense for breaking the law.

 

[radical right]

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'
.

As I said, if you can't prove "criminal intent" you can't convict under the statute.

 

[easyt65]

The very definition of his position gives him the authority to chose what the FBI pursues or chooses not to.

WTF are you talking about? What was there to pursue further? Comey testified that the FBI's CONCLUDED investigation into Hillary proved Hillary DID break the law. He then testified that HE decided not to recommend indictment because HE believed she did not know she was breaking the law.

According to the law it does not matter if one knew or did not know they were breaking the law, they are still GUILTY of breaking the law...which is what Comey testified Hillary did. According to the LAW Comey should have recommended Hillary be indicted. HE did not do that because HE decided it was not worth the DOJ pursuing further.

Comey testified HE believed Hillary was INNOCENT because HE believed she did not know she was breaking the law. All of that was NOT HIS DECISION to make. That was for a court / jury to decide.

Comey's responsibility was to determine if there was enough evidence to prove Hillary broke the law, which he testified that he did. At that point, having proved a crime was committed, his job was to recommend indictment. he refused to do that and protected Hillary.

 

[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'
.

As I said, if you can't prove "criminal intent" you can't convict under the statute.

SAYS YOU!

I have also pointed out according to the law ignorance is no defense for breaking the law and provided enough evidence that Hillary KNEW she was breaking the law when she did it. Again, NOT COMEY'S RESPONSIBILITY TO TRY THE CASE AND/OR DECIDE GUILT OR INNOCENSE!

'I' can't prove 'criminal intent'? It is not MY job to prove 'criminal intent'? No, it is not. It was also NOT Comey's job to try the case / prove there was criminal intent. His job was to find out if the law had been broken - he testified it was.

Bottom Line: According to the FBI, Hillary Clinton Broke the law...and was subsequently protected from prosecution.

 

[hadit]

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.

In relation to what crime? Be specific, please.

 

[radical right]

The very definition of his position gives him the authority to chose what the FBI pursues or chooses not to.

WTF are you talking about? What was there to pursue further? Comey testified that the FBI's CONCLUDED investigation into Hillary proved Hillary DID break the law. He then testified that HE decided not to recommend indictment because HE believed she did not know she was breaking the law.

The statute requires "criminal intent" to convict. Comey said there was no criminal intent, therefore no ability to convict under the statute. If you can't convict, why bring an indictment. That would just be a WASTE of government resources. Spending millions of dollars, on a waste of time.

 

[radical right]

provided enough evidence that Hillary KNEW she was breaking the law .

Comey clearly said there was not enough evidence.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

I'll get back to ya on that, don't have the time right now.

.

 

[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.

In relation to what crime? Be specific, please.

Why is Irrelevant. It was asked what the democrats have been denied, so I gave just one example.

 

[hadit]

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.

In relation to what crime? Be specific, please.

Why is Irrelevant. It was asked what the democrats have been denied, so I gave just one example.

Does it really have to be spelled out in detail that we're talking about the Russian investigations, seriously?

 

[radical right]

I'll get back to ya on that, don't have the time right now.

.

Rule: Use the semicolon if you have two independent clauses connected without a conjunction. Example: I have painted the house; I still need to sand the floors. Rule: Also use the semicolon when you already have commas within a sentence for smaller separations, and you need the semicolon to show bigger separations.

 

[radical right]

Does it really have to be spelled out in detail that we're talking about the Russian investigations, seriously?

Trumps taxes show income from the russians.

 

[hadit]

Does it really have to be spelled out in detail that we're talking about the Russian investigations, seriously?

Trumps taxes show income from the russians.

1. You know this, how?
2. What crime was committed that the IRS missed?

 

[easyt65]

The statute requires "criminal intent" to convict. Comey said there was no criminal intent, therefore no ability to convict under the statute. If you can't convict, why bring an indictment. That would just be a WASTE of government resources. Spending millions of dollars, on a waste of time.

Comey, again, testified Hillary broke the law, which was his job. It was his OPINION that criminal intent could not be proven. It is not his job to forecast what prosecuting attorneys can / will be able to prove or not. that's not his job.

I have also proved there is way more than enough evidence to prove Hillary was neither ignorant of the law or had no intent to break the law. A lawyer could do so far better / more than I can. AFTER having her files / documents subpoenaed, for example, Hillary scrubbed her server - that can be argued as evidence of 'intent' - elimination of evidence.

You snowflakes can argue all you want to that Comey 'made the right call, but it is a call that was not his to make. Comey did not have the physical or mental ability to decide 'intent'. That was left up to the courts / DOJ.

You snowflakes are so defensive, as if to believe indictment and charges filed means 'Guilt' - it doesn't. It means courts, judges, attorneys make their cases in order to decide guilt or innocence. Comey assumed their roles by refusing do his job, which was to recommend indictment based on the fact that Hillary had broken the law.

Comey testified that Hillary broke LAWS. There were more than just ONE law Hillary violated.

FOIA
Federal Records Act
Mishandling Classified
Granting individuals without clearances to access to highly classified material
etc....

There is no way in hell Comey has the authority and ability to decide alone Hillary is 'innocent' of all these charges.

Hillary broke the law. Hillary was protected.

 

[jc456]

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.

well I was brought up that ignorance of the law doesn't keep one out of trouble.

 

[jc456]

Does it really have to be spelled out in detail that we're talking about the Russian investigations, seriously?

Trumps taxes show income from the russians.

1. You know this, how?
2. What crime was committed that the IRS missed?

WTF, so now the left believes if they say so it is. funny group got to tell ya!

 

[radical right]

Trumps taxes show income from the russians.

1. You know this, how?
2. What crime was committed that the IRS missed?

Watch the news, Trump's folks just released that information, Saying Trump had no income from the russians "with limited exceptions"

And then they list the money Trump makes from the russians.

 

[radical right]

[
2. What crime was committed that the IRS missed?

The IRS is prevented from reporting crimninal activities from tax filers, except for violations of the tax law. That's how they get around the 5th amendment to compel people to file a 1040.

 

[radical right]

There is no way in hell Comey has the authority and ability to decide alone Hillary is 'innocent' of all these charges..

Comey didn't say Hillary was innocent, he said the had no mens rea, hence no way to find Clinton guilty.