It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hillary and Trump Deemed Guilty - But Not Guilty Enough To Warrant Prosecution.

page: 4
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

China assets, Bengazi. I mentioned them not to mention the rest of her alleged body count. Its like comparing Apples to a sociapathic warmonger who wants to destroy life as we know it (War with Russia, Libya etc.) Sorry you are unable to see the difference between a sociopathic war monger who laughs when getting pedophile off in court (no pun intended but funny nonetheless) and a man who does not even take a salary, a man who gave up everything to save the country he loves. Sorry you think a sociopathic war monger is ok but a man who loves his country is the same type of person too much of the "Common Core" possibly, or possibly willfully ignorant and Orange man bad etc.
edit on 20-4-2019 by CrazyFox because: Did not want to melt a snowflake




posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: watchitburn

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: watchitburn
No,
You can't obstruct justice on a crime that didn't exist.

Clinton's crimes actually happened.


Not according to the investigations.

That is what insufficient evidence to prosecute means.

The presumption is innocent until PROVEN guilty, and that hasn't been proven.


There's lots of evidence of Clinton's crimes.

There is no evidence of the crimes Trump was accused of.


The crap you read on Facebork or on DC Leaks isn't evidence that would stand up in a court of law.

... and, by the way, what you read on Facebork, that suggested Clinton had done all these crimes, that is the product of the Russian interference in the elections that the Mueller report is all about.

... and we know how Trump kept implicating himself in regard to Mueller's investigations. Especially when, as we can now plainly see from the report, that he wasn't actually the target of the investigations.



edit on 20/4/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Is deleting subpoenaed evidence a crime?

Her team did that



posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Clinton mishandled classified information. That is was deemed "careless" and not "intentional" does not factor, even if I agreed with that conclusion.


18 U.S. Code § 793



 Section 793. Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

18 U.S. Code § 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.


They even changed Comey's speech to remove the word "negligence" and replace it with "careless" (as though that would make it legal)!



posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

And we know mills and abedin lies to do the fbi amd weren’t charged

And we know FBI agents said in released texts that they felt Hillary lied to them by saying the letter “c” she felt was alphabetical and didn’t mean classified

And of course deleting subpoenaed evidence



posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Not exactly a straight comparison, is it? To suggest they found Trump committed a crime is a misrepresentation of the report in the first place. "...this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, ..."



posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: Grambler

Not exactly a straight comparison, is it? To suggest they found Trump committed a crime is a misrepresentation of the report in the first place. "...this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, ..."


Exactly

And don’t get me wrong, Hillary’s crimes do not give trump an excuse to commit crimes

It’s just I don’t believe we have proof beyond a reasonable doubt trump committed obstruction

And I am tired of investigative agencies and the media and politicians having a double standard where they scream about accused crimes of trump, and excise people not connected to trump committing the same crimes

They have no credibility



posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

You require intent, motive and supportive evidence to convict anyone of a crime. All three.

Trump has been investigated and so has Hillary. Neither were charged. That is what has happened.



posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Intent is not required for a statute that covers negligence. Words mean things...


One investigation did not conclude a crime was committed. One investigation found a crime and the FBI stepped outside it's bounds and decided prosecutors would not prosecute such a crime instead of reporting the crime to the AG's office and letting the DOJ decide whether or not to prosecute.

That's what happened. Why are we drawing a false equivalence between the two?
edit on 20-4-2019 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-4-2019 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: RadioRobert

You require intent, motive and supportive evidence to convict anyone of a crime. All three.

Trump has been investigated and so has Hillary. Neither were charged. That is what has happened.


So your telling me the next time I get pulled over for speeding, I can just tell them I didn’t intend to speed and I didn’t committ a crime?



posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: chr0naut

Is deleting subpoenaed evidence a crime?

Her team did that


The failed attempt at deleting mail messages happened while Hillary retained the server. The technician involved had no knowledge that the data was under subpoena and was trying to follow established data security protocol. The Clinton team had no knowledge that the technician was trying to delete the data. After the subpoena was served, the sever was surrendered to the FBI/DHS investigators, removing access to the server from Clinton's team. The investigators were able to recover the entire mail database (a process that takes significant time, and one with which I am fully familiar).

However,

Is tax and banking fraud, campaign fraud, tampering with witness statements, attempts to obstruct justice and lying before congress a crime?

His team did that.



posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 06:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: RadioRobert

You require intent, motive and supportive evidence to convict anyone of a crime. All three.

Trump has been investigated and so has Hillary. Neither were charged. That is what has happened.


Completely made-up nonsense and you state it as if it is some kind of real thing. You do not require intent or motive to convict for all but very specific crimes. (i.e. murder in most jurisdictions typically requires intent, however manslaughter does not nor do most crimes). Motive is never required. Go educate yourself please so people can have a proper conversation with you.

Basically no, you do not require motive and intent for most crimes. Only evidence, not all three as you say with such confident ignorance.
edit on 20-4-2019 by Halfswede because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: chr0naut

Clinton mishandled classified information. That is was deemed "careless" and not "intentional" does not factor, even if I agreed with that conclusion.


18 U.S. Code § 793



 Section 793. Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

18 U.S. Code § 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.


They even changed Comey's speech to remove the word "negligence" and replace it with "careless" (as though that would make it legal)!


This law clearly covers the Department of Defense and its officers.

An electoral candidate and a public sector IT company don't have superior officers to report such breaches to.

"Prompt" reportage of the data breach to superior officers also negates this code section, as does the fact that Hillary is female and this code section clearly makes reference to "his superior officer". Perhaps the statute needs to be revised to remain relevant?



posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: RadioRobert

You require intent, motive and supportive evidence to convict anyone of a crime. All three.

Trump has been investigated and so has Hillary. Neither were charged. That is what has happened.


So your telling me the next time I get pulled over for speeding, I can just tell them I didn’t intend to speed and I didn’t committ a crime?


Your intention and motivation would be clearly evidenced.



posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Not you have already said with trump that attempting to obstruct is a crime even if it’s not successful

So the fbi recovering the material, which I haven’t seen they recovered it all, is irrelevant

In addition you narrative is missing facts

That was the story we were told, until a regular citizen found out that tech guy Commbetta was on reddit saying he was told to delete a very vip name off of email chains, the day after the subpoena was issued

Comey admitted he thought the person who told combetta to alter this emails (a crime) was mills

So the fbi covered for Hillary’s team, and when a regular person found out, they changed their story and still didn’t charge anyone for this obvious crime



posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 06:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Halfswede

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: RadioRobert

You require intent, motive and supportive evidence to convict anyone of a crime. All three.

Trump has been investigated and so has Hillary. Neither were charged. That is what has happened.


Completely made-up nonsense and yo state it as if it is some kind of real thing. You do not require intent or motive to convict for all but very specific crimes. (i.e. murder in most jurisdictions typically requires intent, however manslaughter does not nor do most crimes). Motive is never required. Go educate yourself please so people can have a proper conversation with you.


You have that backwards. Very few crimes are strict liability and do not require intent. Defense secrets, in the United States, are not strict liability laws. Otherwise the government could be prosecuted for security breaches. In the case of the Department of Defense, where specific culpability could not be assigned to a specific individual in the hierarchy, this responsibility would fall to its commander in chief, the President. I'm sure you can see why it would be invalid to apply such nonsense rulings in regard to the actions of enemy combatants, to the President.

Mens rea From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 06:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: chr0naut

Clinton mishandled classified information. That is was deemed "careless" and not "intentional" does not factor, even if I agreed with that conclusion.


18 U.S. Code § 793



 Section 793. Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

18 U.S. Code § 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.


They even changed Comey's speech to remove the word "negligence" and replace it with "careless" (as though that would make it legal)!


This law clearly covers the Department of Defense and its officers.

An electoral candidate and a public sector IT company don't have superior officers to report such breaches to.

"Prompt" reportage of the data breach to superior officers also negates this code section, as does the fact that Hillary is female and this code section clearly makes reference to "his superior officer". Perhaps the statute needs to be revised to remain relevant?


You clearly know nothing about this. When you get a security clearance, you have to sign a contract that literally agrees to all of these penalties. They have verified she signed the very one I speak of, but you have already shown again and again that you are just interested in presenting whatever you think feels right as fact without bothering to look up anything on your own.

This is exactly the tactic used by the majority of the media--throw a bunch of garbage at the wall, get called out on it, and just pretend it never happened because the damage you wanted is already done--mission accomplished.
edit on 20-4-2019 by Halfswede because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
This law clearly covers the Department of Defense and its officers.


No, it covers "whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control " of items classified for purposes of national security or defense. Which includes Madame Secretary who was so entrusted. Again, words mean things. If it covered only military members, it would not need to exist as a law separately of the UCMJ.





"Prompt" reportage of the data breach to superior officers also negates this code section, as does the fact that Hillary is female and this code section clearly makes reference to "his superior officer". Perhaps the statute needs to be revised to remain relevant?


When did HRC report she had mishandled classified information?

You're really not very good at making things up as you go. Or reading comprehension, for that matter... Perhaps English is not your first language preventing you from achieving a certain level of coherence.

edit on 20-4-2019 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

A security breach is external interference and is a completely separate issue from what Hillary did (ie. intentional removal/transfer of classified information) . You do not have to show intent for mishandling classified information to be subject to the penalties. I literally work with FSOs on this daily. You are intentionally misinformed and spreading it. The "intent" factor was something Comey made up on the fly to save Hillary's butt, and it's so prevalent in the news that most people believe it is a requirement.

FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook



Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust.


edit on 20-4-2019 by Halfswede because: (no reason given)


(post by watchitburn removed for a manners violation)


top topics



 
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join