Hillary FINALLY responds to a hard question.

a reply to: introvert

Ok INTRO I know your no fan of Trump, but even you have to admit that there may not have been provable intent on Hillary's part to spread classified info, but there is no doubt to anyone, including yourself, if she scrubbed her server and lawyers cell phones with programs specialized to make the emails unrecoverable there was CLEARLY INTENT to subvert the collection of possible evidence by the FBI.

a reply to: introvert

Feel free.

Thirty out of how many? Or if they weren't prosecuted, what other sanctions were placed on those individuals? My guess is, at the very least, they lost clearances.

At the very least, the very least, this exposes her as incompetent, and should certainly not be President.

a reply to: introvert

In this case, politics and the legal system are intertwined.

The dominant faction is protecting one of their own, through the legal system.

You are the one conflating the issue, in the American legal system - truth and justice are two separate matters.

a reply to: Nucleardoom

Ok INTRO I know your no fan of Trump

Nor a fan of Hillary.

but there is no doubt to anyone, including yourself, if she scrubbed her server and lawyers cell phones with programs specialized to make the emails unrecoverable there was CLEARLY INTENT to subjugate the collection of possible evidence by the FBI.

It's possible, but I would not state unequivocally that it is true.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Puppylove

The proof exists, if it didn't it wouldn't be so widely known by name.

Let's see it.

They are ignoring it because they are under severe pressure to let her off.

Ahhh, conspiracy.

It's always a conspiracy.

Indeed, like the Russian conspiracy with Trump as the secret agent totally responsible for the content of the DNC emails - oh, I forgot, left wing conspiracy theories are true... or the vast KKK conspiracy to overthrow the GOP with Trump as the Grand Wizard.

On a serious point - the evidence is all there and its 100% proven that Clinton broke the law, both by sending and receiving classified information on a private server and then lying about it under oath. Open and shut case - but she has friends in the corrupt govt. who decided to let her off.

a reply to: seagull

But you see, we have to go by law and precedent. Prosecution doesn't usually happen in cases like this, much less jail time.

If you think she's a dufus, you are free not to vote for her. As am I.

a reply to: seagull

Thirty out of how many? Or if they weren't prosecuted, what other sanctions were placed on those individuals? My guess is, at the very least, they lost clearances.

No. It was 6 out of 30.

Or if they weren't prosecuted, what other sanctions were placed on those individuals? My guess is, at the very least, they lost clearances.

At the very least, they received a slap on the wrist.

At the very least, the very least, this exposes her as incompetent, and should certainly not be President.

That is for the voters to decide.

originally posted by: GodEmperor
a reply to: introvert

In this case, politics and the legal system are intertwined.

The dominant faction is protecting one of their own, through the legal system.

You are the one conflating the issue, in the American legal system - truth and justice are two separate matters.

Again, conspiracy. I don't see a conspiracy here.

a reply to: UKTruth

Open and shut case - but she has friends in the corrupt govt. who decided to let her off.

The FBI recommendation was in-line with previous decisions.

There is no conspiracy.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Sillyolme

Such bull.

I spent a long career in the military. Not once did I ever "misplace" sensitive documents.

So you're saying she's either incompetent or corrupt.

Choose which one.

What happened to those who did? General court? Loss of grade and pay? Retirement? All of those?

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Puppylove

The proof exists, if it didn't it wouldn't be so widely known by name.

Let's see it.

The false exculpatory statements Hillary made to Congress (and the public).

As Comey said, he did not weigh them into the FBI's decision. However, both Comey and Gowdy agreed that false exculpatory statements are used to prove intent because typically criminals do not announce they are intending to break the law.

There is evidence to support a recommendation to indict and an indictment. The 'gods' just happened to be smiling on Hillary.

Little wonder people believe the political elite, like Hillary, are above the law.

And that Congressional oversight hearing with Comey was ridiculous. I am sure that if any ordinary person was under official questioning, substantive questions would not be avoided due entirely to party politics.

originally posted by: introvert
Nor a fan of Hillary.

When did that change?
Your continued defense of her corruption says otherwise...

a reply to: MotherMayEye

You're talking about a potential perjury charge. That is completely different, although still very hard to prove and unlikely.

originally posted by: JAY1980

originally posted by: introvert
Nor a fan of Hillary.

When did that change?
Your continued defense of her corruption says otherwise...

I've have always been honest about that. Pay attention.

And because I defend her on this issue does not mean I support her for president.

I know that may be tough for some people to understand, but not my problem in the slightest.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: MotherMayEye

You're talking about a potential perjury charge. That is completely different, although still very hard to prove and unlikely.

No, I am not. I am talking about proving intent with the false exculpatory statements Hillary made.

Link

And, by the way here is what the courts have determined about entering false exculpatory statements as evidence of intent: "It is for a jury to weigh the testimony and the evidence and determine whether the false exculpatory evidence indicated a consciousness of guilt or nothing at all." Zang, 703 F.2d at 1191.

Not the FBI, not the DOJ...a jury.

The FBI could have recommended an indictment. They didn't. But they could and should have because the evidence to prosecute exists in the form of Hillary's false exculpatory statements.

A jury was never allowed to weigh the evidence. But there was/is evidence to support an indictment.

a reply to: introvert

Face it...what this all comes down to is that you think Hillary should be held to the lowest possible standard and I think she should be held to the highest possible standard given the nature of her position.

And I think anyone in a high level of government should be held to the highest possible standard, too.

There was evidence to prove intent, Comey said he didn't consider it.

Unless Hillary directly said, "I intended to violate the law," then Comey was unwilling to look at other methods of proving intent....methods that have plenty of precedence in the courts.

a reply to: introvert

Not after you contradict yourself in two or more statements it isn't.

a reply to: introvert

That is for the voters to decide.

On that, we are agreed. Had to happen eventually.

Some of you are blatant sycophants and I expect nothing better from you.

SOME of you however, are bright and informed folks. You are so blinded by your partisan hatred that you refuse to see the leaps of illogic that you're making.

For those of you claiming that Director Comey is a friend of the Clintons ... you are either blatantly ignorant of his history and everything he has ever done ... or you're simply lying.

You're arguing that your opinions and beliefs are more important than the facts.

Director Comey is a Republican, a long-time watchdog over the law, and a known opponent of the Clintons.

The mental gymnastics that some of you are performing to castigate his reputation would win you Olympic Gold.

(That's disgusting, by the way.)

a reply to: Sillyolme

For now