Trump: "I Never Said Lock Her Up"

No he didn't have evidence to convict.

Yes. He laid it all out and then dodged the consequence of what he had “found” by making a baseless and biased call.

Sorry it bothers you, but that doesn’t change anything.

And by the way, had it been Trump, there is no doubt that the call would have gone the other way.
 
No he didn't have evidence to convict. The rule is you don't bring crimes to court unless you have the evidence to CONVICT....and they did not have it...and Comey said, they did not have the evidence to convict her, because the emails by her staff that they forwarded to Hillary two years after her staff began their emails amongst each other, were not MARKED CLASSIFIED, with header, with date classified, agency who classified, person who classified, and date they become declassified...so when she did finally get sent them, without the CLASSIFIED MARKINGS they could not prove that she knew.
B.S, he said he didn't think she meant to do it, and also didn't know C meant classified, for God's sake think before you type, it was the deep state protecting one of their own
 
No he didn't have evidence to convict. The rule is you don't bring crimes to court unless you have the evidence to CONVICT....and they did not have it...and Comey said, they did not have the evidence to convict her, because the emails by her staff that they forwarded to Hillary two years after her staff began their emails amongst each other, were not MARKED CLASSIFIED, with header, with date classified, agency who classified, person who classified, and date they become declassified...so when she did finally get sent them, without the CLASSIFIED MARKINGS they could not prove that she knew.

Not what he said.
 
Fell free to list any and all laws that she broke by using a personal email server.
Some experts, officials, and members of Congress contended that Clinton's use of a private email system and a private server violated federal law, specifically 18 U.S. Code § 1924, regarding the unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or materials, as well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversyas State Department protocols and procedures ...
 
Obviously based on your comment it isn’t about the law, but because you think she’s a “skanky bitch”.
BackAgain is intimidated by intelligent, accomplished, female authority figures.
We've all seen "Psycho" right?
Yeah, he's like Norman.
 
Sorry pumpkin.

On July 5, FBI Director James Comey announced that he was not going to recommend the filing of criminal charges against Hillary Clinton over her use of a private email server. Comey said there was insufficient evidence to show Clinton had malicious intent. Comey reasoned:

All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information, or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct, or indications of disloyalty to the United States… We do not see those things here.
Many commentators have criticized Comey’s decision, arguing the statute Clinton was accused of violating, 18 U.S.C. § 793(f), requires only “gross negligence,” not intent. Former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy has gone so far as to say that replacing the words “gross negligence” with “intent” rewrites that statute to serve political ends.

McCarthy and others are mistaken. The issue of mens rea, or intent, is not as simple as it seems on the surface, and intent is the correct standard. Comey was right not to recommend filing charges and to base his decision on the absence of evidence that Clinton had the necessary intent.

 

Forum List

Back
Top