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

originally posted by: DancedWithWolves
Lynch was just on CNN saying she did not recuse herself and will do the review of the findings.

This isn't over.

Wow. Just like I said.

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: introvert

I don't think there is anyone who honestly believes that Hillary will be indicted.

Per Judge Jeanine Pirro this morning on Fox, she definitely won't be indicted (and she's a big Hillary critic). The reason being the first witness called would be none other than Barry himself because he actually received the first email (that was government related) from Hillary's private server. which he knew was wrong. They (the whole admin) wants to avoid a Constitutional crisis. That's why the IT guy invoked the Fifth 125 times. There'll be a load of resignations from the FBI and others who tried to perform a non-biased investigation, but that has been why Hillary has been so cock-sure she'd come away unscathed - because Barry told her so.

Hillary, Bill, Loretta, and Barry are all guilty as hell. There are others, as well.

Hillary's list is a mile long, and, imo, involves espionage, not just misuse of her emails.

Bill's list involves The Clinton Foundation and it goes deep and it goes international.

Loretta opened herself up when she accepted Bill onto her private plane for a tete-te-tete that lasted thirty minutes. Highly inappropriate, unethical, and perhaps illegal.

Barry knowingly allowed his Secy. of State to operate government business on a private server connected to The Clinton Foundation. He allowed members of her staff to double dip between that foundation and State business.

He negligently and intentionally never appointed the requisite inspector general to oversee that important department. In other words, he turned a blind eye or was complicit. And 6B$ went missing.

This investigation is going to go deeper than anything most of us have seen in our lifetimes, unless you were around back when Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were screwing America.

James Comey has his hands full and I would say his job and/or life is in jeopardy. How do you prosecute the Big Bosses of an international criminal cartel that hold your life and your livlihood in their hands.

a reply to: introvert

For people to understand what gross negligence is in general. Intent is not needed so your source is wrong. Your source, and you for that matter, need to read the statute I posted.

Intent is not listed because its not the criteria.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Stop it Squirm. No I'm not squirming and oh look.

I WAS RIGHT HA ! ! !

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

No that's wrong. You saying she broke the law is incorrect because that has yet to be proven. Geez is that so hard to understand?

from your side apparently. She broke the law plain and simple.

a reply to: Xcathdra

But all the laws regarding this do specify intent.
I'm gonna be right again.
I usually am.

a reply to: introvert

You just said in this thread your work for Bernie. You are not reliable if you cannot be honest.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: introvert

BS.. you got caught and are trying to obfuscate now.

I did not get caught. You are not understanding what was said.

You still have to show where I lied.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: introvert

You just said in this thread your work for Bernie. You are not reliable if you cannot be honest.

Please link to that post.

a reply to: queenofswords

Until next week.
When they come out and say she's clear. Nothing to see here.

a reply to: Xcathdra

You have to give some folks allowances because they have difficulty in following multi-part conversations and are used to dealing in simple concepts that can be boiled down in to sound bites.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: introvert

For people to understand what gross negligence is in general. Intent is not needed so your source is wrong. Your source, and you for that matter, need to read the statute I posted.

Intent is not listed because its not the criteria.

Yes it is. Your own source says so:

conscious and voluntary

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

But all the laws regarding this do specify intent.
I'm gonna be right again.
I usually am.

Derailing the tread by not reading the espionage statute makes you wrong, not right.

Gross negligence is required. Intent is not a factor.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: introvert

FFS I did link you to the thread. It was the thread I quoted when you claimed you didnt work for a candidate.

The post in this thread is what I was referring to. You said I admitted it in this thread. Please provide a quote from the post in this thread.

Pay attention and stop derailing the thread.

You are the one making a big deal out of it, not me. Pay attention and stop derailing the thread by making me the focus.

a reply to: introvert

and that definition of negligence is not used for the federal statute. It was in general for people to understand the difference between negligence and intent as intent is not needed.

But since you want to deflect Clinton knowingly had a private server set up and knowingly had all emails sent to it. That violated the statute even though "knowingly" and "intent" is not required.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: butcherguy

I don't believe the term 'evil' is applicable unless you believe in the supernatural.

Well this makes zero sense. It's a word, not Count Chocula

a reply to: Xcathdra

But no evidence has been released so all you can do is analyze rumor and opinion. Good luck.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

But no evidence has been released so all you can do is analyze rumor and opinion. Good luck.

The evidence is in the public domain. All one has to do is read it without blinders and then understand the applicable laws.

a reply to: Xcathdra

And I provided a link to an expert on the matter that shows intent is key.

Knowingly and willingly.

Here it is again:

What constitutes criminal conduct with respect to the disclosure of classified information? Relevant law is found in several statutes. To begin with, 18 USC, Section 798 provides in salient part: "Whoever knowingly and willfully ... [discloses] or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety and interest of the United States [certain categories of classified information] ... shall be fined ... or imprisoned." The most important words in this statute are the ones I have italicized. To violate this statute, Secretary Clinton would have had to know that she was dealing with classified information, and either that she was disclosing it to people who could not be trusted to protect the interests of the United States or that she was handling it in a way (e.g. by not keeping it adequately secure) that was at least arguably prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States. [...] Heads of agencies have considerable authority with respect to classified information, including authority to approve some exceptions to rules regarding how classified information should be handled and authority to declassify material their agency has classified.