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

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: jadedANDcynical



Well, they would still have to have evidence to support any claim on intent.

Show me in the legal statute where that would be necessary.

a reply to: Perfectenemy

What evidence? It got destroyed by the Bleachbit mishap of course. Are you playing being dumb on purpose?

So you admit there is no evidence of crimes.

Ok.

Tell me how changing prepared remarks to reflect the correct state of the issue...changes anything.

a reply to: Sillyolme



linkypoo

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: jadedANDcynical



Well, they would still have to have evidence to support any claim on intent.

Show me in the legal statute where that would be necessary.

To say someone had a specific intent, you have to evidence of that intent.

That's how the law works.

a reply to: introvert

Having a private server in a basement and bleachbit subpoenaed evidence is not a crime? They destroyed phones and laptops with hammers ffs. Are you serious? Sorry but you're blind to the obvious crimes that Hillary commited. Just for you. Every other person on the #ing planet would be in jail right now. For the same things.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Sillyolme

linkypoo

Yes. I remember seeing that article, as well.

a reply to: introvert

To say someone had a specific intent, you have to evidence of that intent.

Please, tell us where in the following excerpt intent is specified:

(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.

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

Or here:

Gross Negligence

A lack of care that demonstrates reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, which is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence, and can affect the amount of damages.

Legal Information Institute

a reply to: introvert

I will answer you, but let me just say that you and I both know that if a pro trump person like I don't know say nunes was put in charge of a renewed investigation into hillary and thought he could prosecute her based on the same evidence saying he didn't need intent,

And the he was placed in the trump investigation and interviewed people and concluded that there was nothing if substance,

You would be screaming about how bias he was, and you would be right.

But you have no problem with a bias person for Hillary being in those positions.

What we do know about strzok so far is the following.

The circumstances of his interview with hillary were very strange. He didn't record her, he allowed another person under investigation in the room with her which is highly unusual.

Given his bias, these unusual factors are disturbing.

Although I can't say it's 100 percent known, there are reports that strzok was instrumental in starting the russia investigation based on the dossier that was financed by the dnc, despite that others at the fbi being unsure of the credibility of that dossier.

Given just these two factors, I would say that is enough to question rather he was impartial in his duties.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Thanks JandC....I was pretty sure this was true. Thanks for confirming it.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: jadedANDcynical



Well, they would still have to have evidence to support any claim on intent.

Show me in the legal statute where that would be necessary.

To say someone had a specific intent, you have to evidence of that intent.

That's how the law works.

Again, where does the legal statute for what hillary did say intent was necessary?

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Thanks for posting that.

Of course introvert knows this is true.

He just choses to act as if intent was necessary because otherwise his whole narrative of the fbi and comey acting legitimately falls through.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Perfectenemy

What evidence? It got destroyed by the Bleachbit mishap of course. Are you playing being dumb on purpose?

So you admit there is no evidence of crimes.

Ok.

Tell me how changing prepared remarks to reflect the correct state of the issue...changes anything.

I'm not #ing Google. Ask a lawyer why they would change specific words to avoid letting their client go to prison. One wrong word means jailtime but the right one means freedom. That's the reason why i believe that Comey knew what was in the draft. It was a very vital part of the investigation. Do people seriously believe that some random FBI agent snuck in a change that altered the complete outcome of the investigation without him noticing? Please.

Btw the DOJ thinks so too and launched a investigation into the exact same thing.

a reply to: Perfectenemy

Having a private server in a basement and bleachbit subpoenaed evidence is not a crime?

Apparently not. I thought the laws would have been changed after the RNC got caught hosting a private server for the Bush admin, who lost over 22 million emails, but I guess that wasn't enough to make changes.

They destroyed phones and laptops with hammers ffs. Are you serious? Sorry but you're blind to the obvious crimes that Hillary commited. Just for you. Every other person on the #ing planet would be in jail right now. For the same things.

What crime did she commit?

Illegal use of a hammer?

Abuse and neglect of a electronic device?

Let's be specific. Not interested in anything else.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Please, tell us where in the following excerpt intent is specified:

Do I have to do that? Did you really miss it?

Here it is:

through gross negligence

having knowledge

And from your posted definition:

conscious violation

Intent is specified.

a reply to: introvert

And while we are in it.

The phrase "gross negligence" that was changed by strzok and in the actual legal code specfically implies that intent isn't necessary.

But I can't wait for this.

Explain to me how one intends to be grossly negligent.

a reply to: introvert

You forgot one key word:

or (2) having knowledge

a reply to: Grambler

your example works but imagine their reaction if trey goudy got put in charge of the investigation with how vocal he has been about her guilt from the start

a reply to: Grambler

You would be screaming about how bias he was, and you would be right.

Of course he is biased, but that does not mean he was/is doing his job improperly.

But you have no problem with a bias person for Hillary being in those positions.

You know what they say about assuming...

The circumstances of his interview with hillary were very strange. He didn't record her, he allowed another person under investigation in the room with her which is highly unusual.

If true, very strange.

Let me ask this: Does that change the evidence they had collected and the conclusion they made?

Given his bias, these unusual factors are disturbing.

Ok. How do your personal feeling change the gravity of the evidence they have?

Although I can't say it's 100 percent known, there are reports that strzok was instrumental in starting the russia investigation based on the dossier that was financed by the dnc, despite that others at the fbi being unsure of the credibility of that dossier.

Considering the indictments and the guilty pleas, would it be reasonable to say his actions would have been well-founded?

Given just these two factors, I would say that is enough to question rather he was impartial in his duties.

Did he do anything illegal?

a reply to: Perfectenemy lmao the fact you used that link makes me chuckle. Wow dude all you do is make yourself look old and/or uneducated. Times have changed dude. And also do you even know what 40d chess is? Prob not

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Please, tell us where in the following excerpt intent is specified:

Do I have to do that? Did you really miss it?

Here it is:

through gross negligence

having knowledge

And from your posted definition:

conscious violation

Intent is specified.

Hahahahahaha!


Yep. So if I was grossly negligent in the driving of my car, the prosecutor must prove I inetended to hurt another person.

If my child is hurt in my home because is left my pool open, the court must prove is intened for the kid to get in the pool and drown.

What a joke.