Under fire after secret meeting, Lynch to step back from Clinton probe

a reply to: introvert

Not this crap again.. The information in the public realm is enough to indict, try and convict her. She violated the espionage act.

See my signature line for all the laws she has violated. She is a disgrace and should be charged. Democrats who support her to the extent of trying to absolve her of her crimes are indicative of whats wrong with politics today.

Lulz at the word "recuse" being tossed about... Loretta Lynch has done no such thing, and it's just one more damning piece of evidence on how gullible the citizens of this once great republic have become.

Recusal Law & Definition

After reading that, how can this statement be made?

The source said Lynch will accept the determinations and findings of non-political appointees as well as FBI investigators and FBI Director James Comey.

If you have recused yourself from a case, how can you "accept the determinations and findings?"

a reply to: Sillyolme

As a matter of fact she did recuse herself. Hence appointing lower ranking prosecutors to determine the course of action and not Lynch.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: butcherguy

And you're putting Hillary on that list of monsters? Are you completely insane or only partly?

OMG the drama is high here.

No.
I was told that evil doesn't exist.
I posted that list to show that it does.

You called them monsters, apparently you think that they are evil.

a reply to: introvert

I think it would be appropriate for you to disclose in these types of threads that you once worked for her campaign.. In Iowa if I remember your comment correctly.

a reply to: AlaskanDad

Oh cut it out. The dramatics are unnecessary. If they don't indict they don't. It will only mean they didn't find criminal activity.
There won't be a cover-up.
But will you accept that they don't indict? Will you accept the FBI findings if they don't charge her?

a reply to: Mirthful Me

Which would be recusing herself. She is no longer the determining factor in sending this to a grand jury.


From your own linked definition..

"Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

a reply to: UnBreakable

I'm not a worshipper of humans. You are always overstepping your bounds unbreakable. Watch it.

a reply to: butcherguy

Stick to the issues .
This isn't history class or theology .
Y'all are getting sidetracked .

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
Wow CTR is working over this thread, OMG they will say anything to protect the Queen of the gutter!

The only thing is we aren't living in a nightmare form which we can wake up.

This is the really real world.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: AlaskanDad

But will you accept that they don't indict? Will you accept the FBI findings if they don't charge her?

No and Yes. I know you'll accept if the AG doesn't indict. But will you accept the FBI findings if they recommend charges even though the AG can choose to ignore?

Loretta Lynch: DOJ Not Required to Take FBI Advice on Hillary Prosecution

www.newsmax.com...

a reply to: Xcathdra

No she didn't. OMG where does this stinking crap come from?

Espionage act for Christ's sake. Too funny.

a reply to: Mirthful Me

Because as I've been saying she did not recuse herself. I'm watching it on the news as we speak. Or write lol.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UnBreakable

I'm not a worshipper of humans. You are always overstepping your bounds unbreakable. Watch it.

Oooooo. I'll watch my Ps and Qs. So you have different bounds about what you say about posters here and what is said about you. I see.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

No she didn't. OMG where does this stinking crap come from?

Espionage act for Christ's sake. Too funny.

Um, that comes from what they read to you when you're read onto a project. And if she is handling SCI info, she was.

And if you spill SCI, or fail to protect it, then, well, you run afoul of that, because that's what the act was written for.

eta: it's spelled out in 18 usc 793, 794 and 798. For TS projects, you generally only get read the contents of one of these, for SCI the security goob reads all three to you word for word, unless it's waived. But for the sorts of things she'd be exposed to, all three apply.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

No she didn't. OMG where does this stinking crap come from?

Espionage act for Christ's sake. Too funny.

Yes - She violated the espionage act.

* - 18 USC Chapter 37 - Espionage Act
A - 18 USC § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

B - 18 USC § 798 - Disclosure of classified information

Gross Negligence - Legal Definition (In general)

An indifference to, and a blatant violation of, a legal duty with respect to the rights of others.

Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care. Ordinary negligence and gross negligence differ in degree of inattention, while both differ from willful and wanton conduct, which is conduct that is reasonably considered to cause injury. This distinction is important, since contributory negligence—a lack of care by the plaintiff that combines with the defendant's conduct to cause the plaintiff's injury and completely bar his or her action—is not a defense to willful and wanton conduct but is a defense to gross negligence. In addition, a finding of willful and wanton misconduct usually supports a recovery of Punitive Damages, whereas gross negligence does not.

What part is tripping you up?

Signed NDA - Full - **PDF**

The laws in question -

* - 18 USC Chapter 37 - Espionage Act
A - 18 USC § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

B - 18 USC § 798 - Disclosure of classified information

Gross Negligence - Legal Definition (In general)

An indifference to, and a blatant violation of, a legal duty with respect to the rights of others.

Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care. Ordinary negligence and gross negligence differ in degree of inattention, while both differ from willful and wanton conduct, which is conduct that is reasonably considered to cause injury. This distinction is important, since contributory negligence—a lack of care by the plaintiff that combines with the defendant's conduct to cause the plaintiff's injury and completely bar his or her action—is not a defense to willful and wanton conduct but is a defense to gross negligence. In addition, a finding of willful and wanton misconduct usually supports a recovery of Punitive Damages, whereas gross negligence does not.

This is not a complete list and is based on publicly available info. I would imagine the f eds list will be a lot longer given they are investigating more than just the E-mail scandal (Clinton foundation law violations).

List of possible Crimes

* - 18 USC § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States
* - 18 USC § 1001 - Statements or entries generally (False Statements)
* - 18 USC § 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses
* - 18 USC § 208 - Acts affecting a personal financial interest
* - 18 USC § 1341 - Frauds and swindles
* - 18 USC § 1343 - Fraud by wire, radio, or television
* - 18 USC § 1349 - Attempt and conspiracy
* - 18 USC § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees (Obstruction of Justice)
* - 18 USC § 1519 - Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy
* - 18 USC § 1621 - Perjury generally
* - 18 USC § 1622 - Subornation of perjury
* - 18 USC § 1623 - False declarations before grand jury or court
* - 18 USC § 1905 - Disclosure of confidential information generally
* - 18 USC § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
* - 18 USC § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
* - 26 USC § 7201 - Attempt to evade or defeat tax
* - 26 USC § 7212 - Attempts to interfere with administration of internal revenue laws

a reply to: butcherguy

You don't believe that evil exists.

No.

Here is a definition of evil:

Here is another:

1. profound immorality, wickedness, and depravity, especially when regarded as a supernatural force.

It doesn't have to be associated with faith or the supernatural, just the concept of right and wrong

Right and wrong is something different. Everyone is 'wrong' from time to time, that does not mean they are "evil".

I say that Hillary falls on the side of evil, due to conscious and deliberate wrongdoing. If someone supports her and wants her to have more power, how should I view them?

Why should I care? You want to call people evil, so be it.

What does it have to do with the topic at hand?

That's how bad it is folks. We have Hillary supporters arguing that evil doesn't exist.

Are you fishing for confirmation bias?

a reply to: butcherguy

Semantics buddy. I know evil exists and you my kitchen friend know we're on opposite sides of the stove here. Lol.



I smoked a pork shoulder the other day that fell off the bone and onto a roll. It said put hot sauce on me and eat me. Yum.

Please people keep it on topic and try not to engage each other. I dont want to see this thread dragged off topic.

please and thank you.