31 May 19
@no1marauder saidO no no, I’m not parsing what ‘other people thought’ for goodness sake. Stay with me, here. I’m stating the fact about her server, and applying the definition of espionage to it and her actions.
That the right wing blogosphere keeps insisting that something is a "fact", doesn't make it so. The relevant officials who investigated the matter unanimously decided to the contrary and the DOJ IG's Report which reviewed their decision found it to have been made for appropriate legal considerations and not for any improper motives.
I guess your beef should be with Webster’s dictionary.
31 May 19
@averagejoe1 saidI'm fine with Webster's dictionary:
O no no, I’m not parsing what ‘other people thought’ for goodness sake. Stay with me, here. I’m stating the fact about her server, and applying the definition of espionage to it and her actions.
I guess your beef should be with Webster’s dictionary.
Definition of espionage
: the practice of spying or using spies to obtain information about the plans and activities especially of a foreign government or a competing company
Now explain how such a definition could possibly apply to HRC's actions regarding her server.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/hillary-clinton-emails-could-still-face-charges
In 2016, FBI Director James Comey closed the bureau's investigation of Clinton's email server by concluding she was “extremely careless” in handling classified information, but that no prosecutor would charge her because they could not prove criminal intent. Comey’s decision to usurp traditional Justice Department processes to announce he would not seek charges is a likely subject of the new inspector general report. A memo written last year by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein blasted Comey's decision, and was cited by Trump in firing Comey.
31 May 19
@lemon-lime saidThe IG report was released last June and found the decision not to charge justified by the law and not the product of any improper motives. I have already provided the link to that report.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/hillary-clinton-emails-could-still-face-charges
In 2016, FBI Director James Comey closed the bureau's investigation of Clinton's email server by concluding she was “extremely careless” in handling classified information, but that no prosecutor would charge her because they could not prove criminal intent. Comey’s decis ...[text shortened]... ty Attorney General Rod Rosenstein blasted Comey's decision, and was cited by Trump in firing Comey.
@no1marauder saidhttps://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/hillary-clinton-emails-could-still-face-charges
The IG report was released last June and found the decision not to charge justified by the law and not the product of any improper motives. I have already provided the link to that report.
"Although it would be controversial, the Justice Department is able to reopen the Clinton email case, and experts say President Trump's 2016 adversary arguably could be charged until March 2025 — after Trump would leave office even if he wins a second term."
What part of could-still-face-charges did you not understand?
01 Jun 19
@lemon-lime saidWhy did you post an article relying on an IG report already released which gives no support to your claims?
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/hillary-clinton-emails-could-still-face-charges
"Although it would be controversial, the Justice Department is able to reopen the Clinton email case, and experts say President Trump's 2016 adversary arguably could be charged until March 2025 — after Trump would leave office even if he wins a second term."
What part of could-still-face-charges did you not understand?
It is theoretically possible that HRC could be charged up until 2025 regarding the e-mail molehill. The actual chances of this happening unless the AG gets to be Devin Nunes or some such deranged political hack is approximately zero.
01 Jun 19
@no1marauder saidNothing theoretical about it. Yall are going to HATE Barr.
Why did you post an article relying on an IG report already released which gives no support to your claims?
It is theoretically possible that HRC could be charged up until 2025 regarding the e-mail molehill. The actual chances of this happening unless the AG gets to be Devin Nunes or some such deranged political hack is approximately zero.
The president is a crime victim. Barr will get the culprits. it may include Hillary. The five names citing this thread are in trouble. We need an expose'. There may not be a trial or conviction, but we need to know what they did, or the body politics of this country will be upside down.
01 Jun 19
@no1marauder saidYou people are a brick wall. Try this.
I'm fine with Webster's dictionary:
Definition of espionage
: the practice of spying or using spies to obtain information about the plans and activities especially of a foreign government or a competing company
Now explain how such a definition could possibly apply to HRC's actions regarding her server.
Espionage Act: "Gross Negligence" in mishandling classified documents.
18 USC 793 (F)
Espionage Act: "Intentionally "mishandling Classified documents.
18 USC 793 (D) and (E)
That is it. Acid washing computers (some intent dont you think?), followed by hammering cell phones, removing sim cards. Dirty Dossier which she paid for doesn't help, either. Are you people for real? She committed espionage under 18USC. (I erred in saying Webster, too many years of beating my brains out with wimp liberals. Meant that you simply read the Espionage Act,...... it doesn't mention private server in a bathroom with secret info on it, but I do expect you to at least see the obvious repercussions thereof.
Barr is the perfect man, he will get to the bottom of this, and pretty soon too. You think you hate Trump? You will despise Barr. If Donald gave us all $10M you would still hate him.
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 142511
01 Jun 19
@no1marauder saidThe IG (obama appointee) can neither charge or exonerate anyone. Its not over just yet.
The IG report was released last June and found the decision not to charge justified by the law and not the product of any improper motives. I have already provided the link to that report.
01 Jun 19
@mott-the-hoople saidLMAO! You were relying on that IG report to show the imaginary misconduct you have been spoon fed to believe actually occurred. There was no there there and the whole desperate deflection you right wingers are dreaming of to change the subject away from the Donald's criminal misconduct will again prove to be a nothingburger.
The IG (obama appointee) can neither charge or exonerate anyone. Its not over just yet.
01 Jun 19
@no1marauder saidWhatever you say. Guess I'll just take a seat and watch Barr unearth this sleaze.Looks like Trumps' swamp was/is, in fact real. LMAO prob does not apply here though. I hope you did make note of the Espionage Act, I went to a lot of trouble to phrase it just right!
LMAO! You were relying on that IG report to show the imaginary misconduct you have been spoon fed to believe actually occurred. There was no there there and the whole desperate deflection you right wingers are dreaming of to change the subject away from the Donald's criminal misconduct will again prove to be a nothingburger.
01 Jun 19
@averagejoe1 saidAnd I already showed you what real prosecutors, not right wing internet posters, thought of such "arguments".
Whatever you say. Guess I'll just take a seat and watch Barr unearth this sleaze.Looks like Trumps' swamp was/is, in fact real. LMAO prob does not apply here though. I hope you did make note of the Espionage Act, I went to a lot of trouble to phrase it just right!
01 Jun 19
@no1marauder saidDonald's criminal misconduct? What law did he break?
LMAO! You were relying on that IG report to show the imaginary misconduct you have been spoon fed to believe actually occurred. There was no there there and the whole desperate deflection you right wingers are dreaming of to change the subject away from the Donald's criminal misconduct will again prove to be a nothingburger.
01 Jun 19
@metal-brain saidLaws pertaining to fraud and embezzlement, bribery, obstruction of justice, rape and sexual assault, etc.
Donald's criminal misconduct? What law did he break?