New Evidence: FBI Agent Dismissed from Mueller Probe Let Clinton Off & Opened Russia Probe!

a reply to: Grambler

Case closed.

Great to finally have you understand!

Of course it's closed. You had no case to begin with.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert


I didn't insert anything. It was already in the statute I responded to.

Can't you fricken read?

Well one of us is wrong. Luckily for us this is easily setteled.

jaded posted the statute last page.

Please show me the word intent.

I must have missed it because I can't fricken read.

So please, show me where the word intent is.

I already went over his link and properly addressed it.

Apparently you can't read, otherwise you would have seen it.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert


I didn't insert anything. It was already in the statute I responded to.

Can't you fricken read?

Well one of us is wrong. Luckily for us this is easily setteled.

jaded posted the statute last page.

Please show me the word intent.

I must have missed it because I can't fricken read.

So please, show me where the word intent is.

I already went over his link and properly addressed it.

Apparently you can't read, otherwise you would have seen it.

So you were wrong the word intent isn't there.

Gotcha.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

Case closed.

Great to finally have you understand!

Of course it's closed. You had no case to begin with.

So you admit your very example proves that you were wrong.

Gotcha.

a reply to: introvert

You're trying to claim gross negligence requires intent, which is wrong:

Gross negligence does not refer to acts undertaken with intent to harm another, but acts for which the perpetrator knew, or should have known, would result in injury or damages to another person. Such acts may be seen by the courts as bordering on intentional conduct, depending on the level of recklessness involved.

legal dictionary

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert


I didn't insert anything. It was already in the statute I responded to.

Can't you fricken read?

Well one of us is wrong. Luckily for us this is easily setteled.

jaded posted the statute last page.

Please show me the word intent.

I must have missed it because I can't fricken read.

So please, show me where the word intent is.

I already went over his link and properly addressed it.

Apparently you can't read, otherwise you would have seen it.

So you were wrong the word intent isn't there.

Gotcha.

Both "gross negligence" and "knowingly", which are part of both statutes, refer to individual intent.

So now you're being intentionally obtuse, huh?

a reply to: introvert

She intentionally moved the material from its proper source, which opened it to undue harm. You seem to be suggesting she had to hand the information to a foreign agent to classify it as intent.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

Case closed.

Great to finally have you understand!

Of course it's closed. You had no case to begin with.

So you admit your very example proves that you were wrong.

Gotcha.

No. I admit your example was crap and didn't really make much sense.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert


I didn't insert anything. It was already in the statute I responded to.

Can't you fricken read?

Well one of us is wrong. Luckily for us this is easily setteled.

jaded posted the statute last page.

Please show me the word intent.

I must have missed it because I can't fricken read.

So please, show me where the word intent is.

I already went over his link and properly addressed it.

Apparently you can't read, otherwise you would have seen it.

So you were wrong the word intent isn't there.

Gotcha.

Resist...

Even if you have to lie, cheat or steal.

They are not even living in the reality that Trump is the President.

I will be surprised if you get your apology.

Everything is ok as long a they resist.

Children...

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

It's very simple, as introvert himself (or herself not sure and not trying to cause offense) showed.

If I am driving my car knowing that I am doing so in a way that could hurt others, I am being negligent and can be arrested even if I don't hurt anyone.

As introvert states.

By the same token, Hillary knowingly held classified material in places that are not designated as the proper place, therefore she was grossly negligent and can be charged even if that material was not taken.

This is 9bvious to any one with even the smallest amount of knowledge of the law.

I do not have to intened for anyone or the country etc. to be hurt for me to break the law, all I have to do is act in a negligent way that could make those entities being affected possible.

That is exactly what hillary did.

That is why others that have done things like accidentally carried classified material home have been charged.

These people never intended to lose or sell that info.

Nonetheless, they were grossly negligent, and this charged.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: introvert

You're trying to claim gross negligence requires intent, which is wrong:

Gross negligence does not refer to acts undertaken with intent to harm another, but acts for which the perpetrator knew, or should have known, would result in injury or damages to another person. Such acts may be seen by the courts as bordering on intentional conduct, depending on the level of recklessness involved.

legal dictionary

Read it very carefully and think about how it apples here:

"but acts for which the perpetrator knew, or should have known, would result in injury or damages to another person. Such acts may be seen by the courts as bordering on intentional conduct, depending on the level of recklessness involved."

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

Case closed.

Great to finally have you understand!

Of course it's closed. You had no case to begin with.

So you admit your very example proves that you were wrong.

Gotcha.

No. I admit your example was crap and didn't really make much sense.

I am refermcing your own claim.

You said that I wouldn't have to intends to kill someone to be charged, only knowingly operate the vehicle in an unsafe manner.

In the safe way, Hillary wouldn't have to intend for classified material to be compromised, only knowingly store it in an unsafe manner.

This is your own example, which is correct.

Now you want to act like you didn't say that, which is pathetic, and further illustrates your agenda here isn't being truthful or getting to facts, but in shilling for your side.

a reply to: Grambler

By the same token, Hillary knowingly held classified material in places that are not designated as the proper place

If you could prove that, it would change everything.

The FBI couldn't prove it.

Can you?

anything tbis jackass touched is now tainted

interesting he interviewd clinton
interesting he interviewd flynn
interesting he opened the russia collusion bs

seems now we need somone competent to review these issues

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

By the same token, Hillary knowingly held classified material in places that are not designated as the proper place

If you could prove that, it would change everything.

The FBI couldn't prove it.

Can you?

Yes, she kept the info on a server at her house, and she knew it was there.

That is knowingly holding classified info in places that was not proper.

Now you admit, she should have been charged.

www.law.cornell.edu...

(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.


Words do matter.

Although the standard definition of carelessness is negligence.

a reply to: Grambler

You said that I wouldn't have to intends to kill someone to be charged, only knowingly operate the vehicle in an unsafe manner.

I said that intent would be the difference between the charges you would face.

In the safe way, Hillary wouldn't have to intend for classified material to be compromised, only knowingly store it in an unsafe manner.

"Knowingly" implies intent. Can you prove that intent?

Now you want to act like you didn't say that, which is pathetic, and further illustrates your agenda here isn't being truthful or getting to facts, but in shilling for your side.

I did say it, but you are not putting it in the same context as I did.

It just further illustrates that you can't stay on track and will twist # as you see fit.

a reply to: Grambler

Correct. The law often is applied using "a reasonable person" standards. Negligence is such a case. If your tree falls on a neighbor, it isn't automatically negligent on your part. If circumstances or evidence exist that a reasonable person would have cause to believe might constitute a hazard (tree has been sick, dying, leaning, etc) and one did not take reasonable precautions to prevent it, then legal negligence is judged to have occurred.

You don't have to intend for your tree to fall on your neighbors to be negligent.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
anything tbis jackass touched is now tainted

interesting he interviewd clinton
interesting he interviewd flynn
interesting he opened the russia collusion bs

seems now we need somone competent to review these issues

Add to your list, he was involved in investigating the Clinton emails found on Anthony "the perv" Weiner's laptop (if this link is correct.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

By the same token, Hillary knowingly held classified material in places that are not designated as the proper place

If you could prove that, it would change everything.

The FBI couldn't prove it.

Can you?

Yes, she kept the info on a server at her house, and she knew it was there.

That is knowingly holding classified info in places that was not proper.

Can you prove she knew classified info was on the server?

Now you admit, she should have been charged.

Admit what? You say things like that when you try to shut down a debate.