Two ex-Watergate prosecutors agree ‘there’s enough evidence right now to indict Donald Trump’

[radical right]

Pennsylvania attorney general resigns after abuse of power conviction

Kathleen Kane, Pennsylvania’s first elected female attorney general, announced her resignation Tuesday, a day after being convicted of abusing the powers of the state’s top law enforcement office

Apples and oranges. A State AG is elected, the US AG is not.


.

Abuse of power is abuse of power. Bripat claimed it wasn't a crime.

"Abuse of power?" That means it's perfectly legal, but petulant turds like you would cry about it.

abuse of power is not perfectly legal.

 

[rightwinger]

Two ex-Watergate prosecutors agree ‘there’s enough evidence right now to indict Donald Trump’

Bob Brigham
24 Nov 2017 at 20:58 ET
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to FacebookFacebook2.7KShare to TumblrTumblrShare to MoreMore78


Two ex-Watergate prosecutors agree ‘there’s enough evidence right now to indict Donald Trump’

Wow, this nothingburger is piled high 10 feet high with every kind of meat you can think of. It is fucking juicy!!! Trump is fucking going down!

Yep, and also enough evidence to indict this-

View attachment 162636

Crooked Donnie is facing a shit sandwich

Perhaps. But these politicians are slippery fucks. Hillary wriggled her fat ass out shit.

Hillary never did anything

Trump is a Nixon clone

Educate yourself boy.

Private email server
State Department Emails
Benghazi
Sidney Blumenthal
Willie getting huge speaking fees while Hellary is SOS, PAY TO PLAY.
Clinton Foundation fraud
Troopergate
Travelgate
Vince Foster “suicide”
Etc etc etc.....

Did Hillary commit any crimes in 'rigging' the Democratic primary?
Well, if seeking dirt from the Russians on Clinton is now a federal crime, how about seeking dirt from Russian sources against Trump? If that does not “fall squarely within” the criminal code, how about rigging the primary, as alleged last week by former Democratic National Committee head Donna Brazile? In her new book, she contends Clinton essentially bought the DNC by assuming responsibility for its crippling debt in exchange for controlling critical elements of the organization before the primary. Brazile was fired by CNN for unethical conduct in leaking debate questions to Clinton, then lying about it to the media. However, even Brazile balked at what she found at the DNC.

Brazile says she discovered an August 2015 agreement between the national committee and the Clinton campaign that the latter be allowed to “control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised.” Brazile said the deal was legal, “but it sure looked unethical,” but still gave the Clinton campaign “control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead.” The former DNC head now agrees the deal “compromised the party’s integrity.”

25 years and Republicans couldn't even get an indictment?

Hillary must be a master criminal

 

[radical right]

Intent can not 100% be proven. Comey already declared Hillary was / is guilty of 'gross negligwnce'. There is an actual law, which Hillary violated, that covers that.

The Hillary Cover-Up is the most obvious crime cover-up in US history, considering how many laws were OBVIOUSLY violated.

Justice Stanley Reed wrote the majority opinion and disagreed that the law was unconstitutionally vague, but only on the very narrow grounds that the law required “intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States.” Only because the court read the law to require scienter, or bad faith, before a conviction could be sustained was the law constitutional.

Gorin v. United States (1941)

 

[beagle9]

You might want to read Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution, the president is the only person charged by the Constitution to ensure the laws are faithfully executed. The DOJ and all it's appendages get their constitutional authority from him, not congress or anyone else.


.

Faithfully executed means without political interference.

. The whole thing is political.

 

[bripat9643]

And that is the standard for prosecution under the law, it's one of the few federal statutes that don't require intent.
.

Read the case law, which makes it require intent.

Why Intent, Not Gross Negligence, is the Standard in Clinton Case

WHY INTENT, NOT GROSS NEGLIGENCE, IS THE STANDARD IN CLINTON CASE

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.

In Gorin v. United States (1941), the Supreme Court heard a challenge to a conviction of a Navy intelligence official

The defendant argued on appeal that the phrase “relating to the national defense” was unconstitutionally vague

Justice Stanley Reed wrote the majority opinion and disagreed that the law was unconstitutionally vague, but only on the very narrow grounds that the law required “intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States.” Only because the court read the law to require scienter, or bad faith, before a conviction could be sustained was the law constitutional.

You're trying to buffalo us into believing you've actually read any such case law. We know you didn't because there is none. They guy who took pictures of the missil silos in the nuclear submarine didn't have any malicision intent.

US Navy sailor jailed for taking photos of classified areas of nuclear submarine

 

[OKTexas]

And that is the standard for prosecution under the law, it's one of the few federal statutes that don't require intent.
.

Read the case law, which makes it require intent.

Why Intent, Not Gross Negligence, is the Standard in Clinton Case

WHY INTENT, NOT GROSS NEGLIGENCE, IS THE STANDARD IN CLINTON CASE

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.

In Gorin v. United States (1941), the Supreme Court heard a challenge to a conviction of a Navy intelligence official

The defendant argued on appeal that the phrase “relating to the national defense” was unconstitutionally vague

Justice Stanley Reed wrote the majority opinion and disagreed that the law was unconstitutionally vague, but only on the very narrow grounds that the law required “intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States.” Only because the court read the law to require scienter, or bad faith, before a conviction could be sustained was the law constitutional.

Gross negligence in not in the least vague. Comey said himself that the bitch was extremely careless (grossly negligent) and that no reasonable person would have the conversations she did on an insecure system. (gross negligence)

And if you want intent that is inconvertible, try she set up and used her private server in an attempt to avoid federal records keeping laws, making everything she did subsequently part of an ongoing crime.


.

 

[radical right]

case law

noun

1. the law as established by the outcome of former cases.

Case Law - Legal Dictionary | Law.com
case law. n. reported decisions of appeals courts and other courts which make new interpretations of the law and, therefore, can be cited as precedents.

 

[bripat9643]

Intent can not 100% be proven. Comey already declared Hillary was / is guilty of 'gross negligwnce'. There is an actual law, which Hillary violated, that covers that.

The Hillary Cover-Up is the most obvious crime cover-up in US history, considering how many laws were OBVIOUSLY violated.

Justice Stanley Reed wrote the majority opinion and disagreed that the law was unconstitutionally vague, but only on the very narrow grounds that the law required “intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States.” Only because the court read the law to require scienter, or bad faith, before a conviction could be sustained was the law constitutional.

Gorin v. United States (1941)

Gorin was a Russian spy who paid for classified information. That case has nothing to do with what Hillary's violations of the Espionage Act.

 

[beagle9]

Yep, and also enough evidence to indict this-

View attachment 162636

Crooked Donnie is facing a shit sandwich

Perhaps. But these politicians are slippery fucks. Hillary wriggled her fat ass out shit.

Hillary never did anything

Trump is a Nixon clone

Educate yourself boy.

Private email server
State Department Emails
Benghazi
Sidney Blumenthal
Willie getting huge speaking fees while Hellary is SOS, PAY TO PLAY.
Clinton Foundation fraud
Troopergate
Travelgate
Vince Foster “suicide”
Etc etc etc.....

Did Hillary commit any crimes in 'rigging' the Democratic primary?
Well, if seeking dirt from the Russians on Clinton is now a federal crime, how about seeking dirt from Russian sources against Trump? If that does not “fall squarely within” the criminal code, how about rigging the primary, as alleged last week by former Democratic National Committee head Donna Brazile? In her new book, she contends Clinton essentially bought the DNC by assuming responsibility for its crippling debt in exchange for controlling critical elements of the organization before the primary. Brazile was fired by CNN for unethical conduct in leaking debate questions to Clinton, then lying about it to the media. However, even Brazile balked at what she found at the DNC.

Brazile says she discovered an August 2015 agreement between the national committee and the Clinton campaign that the latter be allowed to “control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised.” Brazile said the deal was legal, “but it sure looked unethical,” but still gave the Clinton campaign “control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead.” The former DNC head now agrees the deal “compromised the party’s integrity.”

25 years and Republicans couldn't even get an indictment?

Hillary must be a master criminal

. She is a master criminal ain't nobody challenging that.

 

[radical right]

Gross negligence in not in the least vague.

.

"relating to the national defense" is vague. Such that it requires intent of the actions that violate it.

To prosecute 18 USC 793(f) Gorin v. United States (1941) added the requirement of intent.

Argue with the supreme court.

 

[bripat9643]

Pennsylvania attorney general resigns after abuse of power conviction

Kathleen Kane, Pennsylvania’s first elected female attorney general, announced her resignation Tuesday, a day after being convicted of abusing the powers of the state’s top law enforcement office

Apples and oranges. A State AG is elected, the US AG is not.


.

Abuse of power is abuse of power. Bripat claimed it wasn't a crime.

"Abuse of power?" That means it's perfectly legal, but petulant turds like you would cry about it.

abuse of power is not perfectly legal.

There is no federal crime called "abuse of power."

 

[OKTexas]

You might want to read Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution, the president is the only person charged by the Constitution to ensure the laws are faithfully executed. The DOJ and all it's appendages get their constitutional authority from him, not congress or anyone else.


.

Faithfully executed means without political interference.

Funny, you didn't hold that opinion when your dear leader was in charge, you called it prosecutorial desecration.


.

 

[radical right]

Gorin v. United States (1941)

Gorin was a Russian spy who paid for classified information. That case has nothing to do with what Hillary deserves to be convicted of.

Gorin V US is the case law that added the "intent" requirement to prosecution under 18 USC 793(f)

As I said, you know nothing bout law.

 

[OKTexas]

case law

noun

1. the law as established by the outcome of former cases.

Case Law - Legal Dictionary | Law.com
case law. n. reported decisions of appeals courts and other courts which make new interpretations of the law and, therefore, can be cited as precedents.

Precedents are only as good as the next court decision. Period end of story.


.

 

[radical right]

Funny, you didn't hold that opinion when your dear leader was in charge, you called it prosecutorial desecration.


.

I wasn't old enough to vote until 2010, and didn't vote in 2012. I didn't start posting until 2017. Why make shit up?

 

[easyt65]

Intent can not 100% be proven. Comey already declared Hillary was / is guilty of 'gross negligwnce'. There is an actual law, which Hillary violated, that covers that.

The Hillary Cover-Up is the most obvious crime cover-up in US history, considering how many laws were OBVIOUSLY violated.

Justice Stanley Reed wrote the majority opinion and disagreed that the law was unconstitutionally vague, but only on the very narrow grounds that the law required “intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States.” Only because the court read the law to require scienter, or bad faith, before a conviction could be sustained was the law constitutional.

Gorin v. United States (1941)

Comey stated:

1. Hillary broke the law...
- The Dir of the FBI admitted Hillary broke the law

2. '...but she was too stupid to know she was doing it.
...1. 'Ignorance' is not a legal defense for breaking the law

...2. Comey's statement is false because:
---- The govt has official documents signed by Hillary, after completing initial and re-occurring training, stating she fully understood the laws covering handling of classified
----- As Sect of State, Hillary sent out a memo to all State Dept personnel warning them not to user their own personal e-mails / servers because of the potential to do what she did - break laws.

Hillary Clinton violated numerous laws, and - even Comey knows - there was / is no legal defense for her crimes.

This is why Comey changed his words in his letter, why he wrote the exoneration letter before the investigation was over, and why he tried to claim Hillary's 'ignorance' was her (only) defense.

 

[radical right]

case law

noun

1. the law as established by the outcome of former cases.

Case Law - Legal Dictionary | Law.com
case law. n. reported decisions of appeals courts and other courts which make new interpretations of the law and, therefore, can be cited as precedents.

Precedents are only as good as the next court decision. Period end of story.


.

You're right. Comeys decision requiring intent was only in effect starting in 1941, and will continue until the USSC again visits 18 USC 793(f) . Until then you're free to hold you breath and stomp your feet.

 

[radical right]

Comey stated:

1. Hillary broke the law...
- The Dir of the FBI admitted Hillary broke the law

2. '...but she was too stupid to know she was doing it.

As I said Comey is a lawyer, he read Gorin V USA 1941, requiring "intent" to prosecute under 18 USC 793(f)

 

[radical right]

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.

Cases include Gorin V USA 1941

 

[easyt65]

Gross negligence in not in the least vague..

"relating to the national defense" is vague. Such that it requires intent of the actions that violate it.

BS. 'Gross negligence' does not need 'intent' but could be perpetrated through 'incompetence'.

Comey said Hillary broke the law but 'was too stupid to know she was doing it'. Although not true / relevanr, Comey made the perfect argument for criminal incompetence.