FBI Director will be holding a Press Conference at 11AM EST today

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

He has the outcome of an investigation to support his claim that she does not know what she is doing and she has no defence.

In that same line of thinking, she could point to his bankruptcies to show that he has no idea what he is doing.

What you propose is nothing new. It would not be clever on Trump's part and only precipitates a circular argument in which neither side can take an advantage over the other.

This i agree with. But that is the point really. One of Hillary's attack angles on Trump which she's used a lot is now blunted.

originally posted by: yuppa

Trumps still rich right? SO apparently he does know what hes doing even with bankruptcies.

Donald Trump has said publicly on TV, that "bankruptcy" is merely a legal tool used in business to make more money.

He also said that he tries to pay the least in taxes, always.

Trump is the quintessential Republican, with the philosophy of "ME FIRST!".

Expect his presidency to be run with the same philosophy.

He might even change the name of the "White House" to the "Trump House" while he is sitting president.

Knowing The Donald, that's his style.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: yuppa

Trumps still rich right? SO apparently he does know what hes doing even with bankruptcies.

Donald Trump has said publicly on TV, that "bankruptcy" is merely a legal tool used in business to make more money.

He also said that he tries to pay the least in taxes, always.

Trump is the quintessential Republican, with the philosophy of "ME FIRST!".

Expect his presidency to be run with the same philosophy.

I expect the Donald to declare bankruptcy within months of losing his bid for the WH.

I think he only plays a Billionaire on TV.

This is why he wont release his tax returns...this is why the city of NY issues him a tax break for those making less than 500k annually.

The vast majority of places with Trump's name on them have licensed his name...he doesn't actually own many of the "Trump" resorts or Hotels that have his name.

And his name brand is now dead...even conservative developers don't want his name on their Buildings now that the majority of the country has a "highly unfavorable" view of him. So his money flow is drying up, he bet 40 M he had in pocket on a losing campaign...He owns buildings by which he claims inflated worth..but he also has massive mortgage loans on those buildings...He is the subject of some pretty serious lawsuits right now like his University...and that will cost him Millions if he loses and I am pretty sure he will..He has apparently used donations to the Trump Foundation as his own personal spending account and now that is being scrutinized he wont be able to that anymore.

Just my 2 cents...and the next year will prove me right or wrong, but I think Trump is again on his way to bankruptcy court in the near future.

a reply to: Indigo5

Bankruptcy....

He will be fine when he is in office for 8 years. He has 3 great kids to run his company.

His profits will be YYUUUUGGEEEEEEEEE

a reply to: matafuchs

Just for you Mata I will make note to quote your post above when the news hits sometime after Christmas

a reply to: Indigo5

You know, I know it's common to discredit someone that is such a political embarrassment to this country, but you're echoing thoughts that I've been having for months.

I don't think Donald J. Trump is "broke" by any means, but I also don't think he's the ridiculously wealthy megastar he pretends to be. I have had this thought since I found out he's collecting a SAG pension.

He's been selling the brand, licensing the Trump logo for decades ... and probably did okay with it for a while. For the last few years, he's been a spokesman ... a past-his-prime TV star, pimping himself at the equivalent of grocery store openings and used car marathons.

I wouldn't be surprised if he actually started doing this Presidential gig to renovate his brand, and things just backfired on him. Now he's in so far, he can't afford to cash out.

As you say, we'll see.

a reply to: Indigo5

20 bucks he is worth 20 billion in 2018...and you get a star for that

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Indigo5

20 bucks he is worth 20 billion in 2018...and you get a star for that

I'll take some of that virtual action.

I know the guy is a personal hero of yours ... but can't you look at the signs?

Financing his own campaign, not financing, asking for donors, even sending donations slips to foreign lawmakers ...

He's probably leveraging a personal fortune of about 100 million, if that.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I haven't missed that statement from Director Comey; I've quoted it.

No you just don't understand what he said.

originally posted by: Terminal1
a reply to: Xcathdra

Just remember. Since the investigation phase of the case is over and since the recommendation was no charges then that means the case is now open to FOIA requests.

Unless I am wrong... but that is the way I understand it now. You can believe that if it is the case and we the people are able to send FOIA requests Judicial Watch will be all over this.

Not necessarily.. There is an active FBI investigation into public corruption and the Clinton foundation.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: SonOfThor
a reply to: Gryphon66

Even if that were her reason for using her own server, wouldn't that in itself show intent to break USC 18 793(f)?

As a Johnson supporter for this year and outspoken libertarian, I definitely agree with you that this is only the tip of the ice berg. It's just this example shows how much a different standard a small group of people are held to because of their place in the corporatist oligarchy.

The Espionage Act? First quesiton ... have you read it in full? 18 USC 793

These folks that are endlessly quoting (f) are neglecting to point out that (a) refers to intent.

As far as (f) actually goes, we'd have to adequately define "place of custody."

Once again yuo show why you should not be anywhere involved in this conversation. You do not know what you are talking about. You do not know how to read the laws in question let alone how they are applied.

Please stop0 because all you are doing is derailing the thread with useless and incorrect comments.

Let me correct you once again.

When you read a statute you will see 2 words that are important -

"and" as well as "or"

When the statute lists the elements that must be broken to violate the law, and uses the word "and" it means all elements of the crime must be broken to be in violation. When the statute lists the elements and uses the word "or" it means each section stands on its own and does not require a violation of all elements listed.

Hence the reason we look at section F correctly while you incorrectly look at section A.

Either learn what you are talking about or stop talking on subject matters you have no clue what you are doing.

Section F is gross negligence.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: UKTruth

Correct, but it was not "up-classification". The information sent or received by Clinton included secret and top secret information at the time it was sent or received. Undeniable fact.

And she deleted hundreds of emails marked classified, and did not
turn them over as she swore under oath to Congress.

That is aka Perjury.

... and your evidence for that is? ....

She testified under oath that she had released all her emails. Some were found that she did not release. We could chalk it up to yet another mistake I guess. Perhaps it was just another case of her not being on top of things and showing how incompetent she was as a Secretary of State. Maybe everyone can just use 'I didn't realise I was breaking the law' as a defence form now on.

You're dissolving into political patter now.

Best of luck to you on that.

The outrage and clutching of pearls on this site the last two days has been hilarious.

defending a law breaker is pretty low man. She broke laws but they arent going to prosecute because the DOJ would not do so even if they said they would follow the FBIs reccomendations.

They are not going to prosecute because the "laws" that were broken usually result in a hand slap.

They aren't going to prosecute because the FBI director forgot he was not a federal prosecutor anymore and incorrectly applied intent instead of the required gross negligence.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: introvert

True but ANY lawbreaking or Indictment disqualifies her from president though. Thats whats important.

The only thing that can disqualify a person from President is if they don't meet the criteria to run. Absent that the Constitution places no other restrictions. A President can use their pardon authority on any Federal level issue that qualli9fies except for impeachment, where pardon authority does not apply.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I'm derailing the thread when every comment and response you make to me is the same? Off topic crap about your errant opinions of me?

Get over it. Stop responding to me if you're so troubled.

And please ... you're now going to explain "and" and "or"? Fascinating, though it doesn't relate to anything I've said.

I'll give you the fact that your pedantic nature knows no boundaries, though, for sure.

If you can't read (a) in 18 USC 793 and determine it relies on intent ... you're just blind. That was my only comment to ANOTHER POSTER. You claim (with no evidence again) yourself as your only authority. What must be said to have you realize that neither I nor many others here recognize your assumed authority: we don't believe you, in short. So stop trying to shut down the conversation, say what you need to say and move on, eh?

You choose (f) because you think it fits your claims about Clinton. It doesn't I've shown why: the issue of custody.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Ahh ok. in that case.Manson for president!!!

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: UKTruth

Correct, but it was not "up-classification". The information sent or received by Clinton included secret and top secret information at the time it was sent or received. Undeniable fact.

They aren't going to prosecute because the FBI director forgot he was not a federal prosecutor anymore and incorrectly applied intent instead of the required gross negligence.

And she deleted hundreds of emails marked classified, and did not
turn them over as she swore under oath to Congress.

That is aka Perjury.

... and your evidence for that is? ....

She testified under oath that she had released all her emails. Some were found that she did not release. We could chalk it up to yet another mistake I guess. Perhaps it was just another case of her not being on top of things and showing how incompetent she was as a Secretary of State. Maybe everyone can just use 'I didn't realise I was breaking the law' as a defence form now on.

You're dissolving into political patter now.

Best of luck to you on that.

The outrage and clutching of pearls on this site the last two days has been hilarious.

defending a law breaker is pretty low man. She broke laws but they arent going to prosecute because the DOJ would not do so even if they said they would follow the FBIs reccomendations.

They are not going to prosecute because the "laws" that were broken usually result in a hand slap.

Perhaps you do not know the difference between simple negligence and gross negligence.

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.

Conscious and voluntary. In other words, intent.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I urge people to double check and verify what you post. You intentionally ignore facts / laws you don't understand and you make false claims abount the law and its application.


This topic is problematic enough without having people who don't understand and don't know what they are talking about posting information thats not applicable or flat out wrong.

Everytime you post wrong info I will continue to call you out for posting false information and will continue to attach this warning to your posts.

Either learn what you are talking about and the topic at hand or continue to post false information and be called out on it. Your choice.

a reply to: introvert

Yes you tried this argument before and were shot down because you didnt understand the definition posted was in general (as I stated in the post) and was used as an example to those who didn't know the difference, much like yourself. Thats evident by you repeatedly using in correct information.

Intent is not required for section F and no amount of you being wrong will change that.

Gross negligence is NOT intent.

"As far as (f) actually goes, we'd have to adequately define "place of custody.""

Total unadulterated BS yet once again.... it is endless.

How would you like to define "place of custody" concerning classified information?????


I go with what the National Security Agency puts forth as guidelines for the safe keeping of classified information... there are reams of regulations that state exactly what "place of custody" is and I can promise you Hillary Clintons private server at her residence is nowhere to be found in those regulations.

Look up something like SCIF accreditation see what it takes to have a legal "place of custody".

You know nothing about classified information, it is painfully obvious.

a reply to: RickinVa

I can not tell you where the place of custody IS, but I can tell you where it's NOT, and that is on a private home server. It also is NOT a blackberry.