Why no investigation...Stryzok the texting loving lawyer...protected Hillary from criminal charges!

[bripat9643]

Otto, typical leftist. Always wrong and too stupid to notice.

"FBI agent Peter Strzok was advised of an irregularity in the metadata of Hillary Clinton’s server"

This is meaningless. This means absolutely nothing to anybody. What metadata? How did it indicate a breach?

My post was to otto. Not the brightest guy. He challenged the well established fact that classified Clinton email ended up in a pedophiles computer.

From the article I linked...

"The State Department Friday released a trove of emails from Huma Abedin that the feds discovered on her husband Anthony Weiner’s laptop — including at least five that were marked as “classified.”"

First of all Huma had clearance required.

Second of all it got there from Apple auto-backup. There was no intent to mishandle or somehow share anything with her husband.

Once again, douchebag, intent isn't required.

It's possible that you just never got to whole the concept of object permanence thing, but we've already been over this. Yes, intent is required.

"It's possible that you just never got to whole the concept of object permanence thing"

Could you translate that into English?

That statute states that intent is not required.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

"FBI agent Peter Strzok was advised of an irregularity in the metadata of Hillary Clinton’s server"

This is meaningless. This means absolutely nothing to anybody. What metadata? How did it indicate a breach?

My post was to otto. Not the brightest guy. He challenged the well established fact that classified Clinton email ended up in a pedophiles computer.

From the article I linked...

"The State Department Friday released a trove of emails from Huma Abedin that the feds discovered on her husband Anthony Weiner’s laptop — including at least five that were marked as “classified.”"

First of all Huma had clearance required.

Second of all it got there from Apple auto-backup. There was no intent to mishandle or somehow share anything with her husband.

Once again, douchebag, intent isn't required.

It's possible that you just never got to whole the concept of object permanence thing, but we've already been over this. Yes, intent is required.

"It's possible that you just never got to whole the concept of object permanence thing"

Could you translate that into English?

That statute states that intent is not required.

Apologies. That should read "It's possible you just never got to the whole concept of object permanence thing."

Object permanence - Wikipedia, if that helps.

As I said before, that section of the statute has been shown to be unconstitutional without the element of intent - which is why no one has been charged under it since that ruling.

 

[Reasonable]

Strzok didn't "save" Clinton. The wording of a press statement does not change any of the facts of the case.

What exactly do you believe should be "investigated"?

The facts of the case show that Hillary belongs in prison.

The village is still-looking for their idiot, Bripat. He's always hiding at this forum.