Justice Department reopens Hillary Clinton email investigation

a reply to: Shamrock6

Yea that’s how ANYTHING works lol...

a reply to: Sillyolme

HOW CAN YOU TYPE THAT WITH A STRAIGHT FACE?
1 lead investigator in hillary investigation got half a million dollars to run for office( bribery)

2 lynch met secretly for four hours in arizona in a private plane with bill clinton to chat about grand kids while lynch's justice department was investigating ( lynch and bill made a deal to not prosecute hillary.

3 comey leaking stuff to press.

a reply to: Perfectenemy

yea she might of but that can be with drawn.

a reply to: SouthernForkway26

A) they didn’t complete the robbery..
Only KEEPING the wallet would be an amature mistake..

In fact taking it allows you to set up some bum 2 streets over..

B) they didn’t provide a pasty...


The fact they didn’t take the wallet sets up the imho more realistic scenerio that there was some kinda confrontation or Rich decided to run . Then after the shooting the robber decided to run rather than check the body..


What imho seems just crazy is a pro would set it up to look like a failed robbery.. and not take the wallet or set up a patsy..

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Shamrock6

Commonly accepted accept by the law enforcement agencies who investigated her.

What you refuse to understand is they did NOT investigate her.

They instead drew up an acquittal letter before interviewing anyone. They talked in text messages how she was getting an HQ job. They did not record or take any notes of the Hillary interview. They gave immunity to Mills before interviewing her.

They actively tried to plug the leak of the tarmac meeting.

There is tons of evidence of corruption and a cover up you just refuse to see it.

a reply to: introvert

mishandling of classified data by using a private no gov server is a felony whether done unknowingly or on purpose its still a crime no intent is required.

Still nothing on the news about this.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

What incriminating evidence if you please?

You might want to take the blindfold off. Unless you've been living in an actual bubble, there is a preponderance of incriminating evidence RE: Hillary + her aides.

Least of which is the fact that Abedin and Mills both lied to the FBI when asked whether they knew about Clinton's illegal private server. They stated they were not aware of it. However, leaked emails prove that both not only knew about it, but cautioned her against it.

Ergo, they lied to the FBI. Doesn't matter what you lie about. This is exactly what Flynn is on the hook for (and Manafort to a degree).

That evidence, Silly. I'll go over more, one at a time, once you reply. I've learned not to write it all at once, too easy for you all to ignore and deflect.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Your not looking then, because Clinton's team is already crying
about it blaming Trump for pressuring the DOJ.

originally posted by: proteus33
a reply to: introvert

mishandling of classified data by using a private no gov server is a felony whether done unknowingly or on purpose its still a crime no intent is required.

Incorrect.

Can you find one case in which someone was charged without intent?

If you are going to take the gross negligence route, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Not sure how relevant these sources are:

www.newsweek.com...
nypost.com...




Unrelated to the above claim, but looks at the reason this issue needs a special prosecutor or at least a new investigation:
www.washingtonpost.com...

a reply to: introvert

You don't need to prove intent for espionage charges.

a reply to: burntheships

Oh they will scream to high heaven, especially once it is clear that a non-Clintonista outfit will be conducting the investigation. She is toast. Abedin, Mills, et al are also toast. However, it is much more likely one of them will flip on her since there is no longer a chance of her becoming POTUS

a reply to: JBurns

Clinton Spokesman Nick Merrill has posted
on his Twitter feed how angry he is about it.

mobile.twitter.com...

Awh he sound upset!

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

No Andy , I don't Think you want to Go there Just YET............

originally posted by: JBurns
Not sure how relevant these sources are:

www.newsweek.com...
nypost.com...




Unrelated to the above claim, but looks at the reason this issue needs a special prosecutor or at least a new investigation:
www.washingtonpost.com...

They are not relevant. They both still source the very same Daily Beast article, which has no sources.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: introvert

You don't need to prove intent for espionage charges.

Can you find one case as an example?

a reply to: introvert

Hang in there as long as you can, denial is a great self preservation tool.
Until it's not.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: proteus33
a reply to: introvert

mishandling of classified data by using a private no gov server is a felony whether done unknowingly or on purpose its still a crime no intent is required.

Incorrect.

Can you find one case in which someone was charged without intent?

If you are going to take the gross negligence route, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Incorrect. Gross negligence is absolutely a prosecutable offense. Whether it's been done once or 100 times is immaterial to that.

Section 793(f) of the Espionage Act is unique in that it punishes the loss or removal of national defense information resulting from "gross negligence." This standard has been described in other contexts as "the failure to exercise even a slight degree of care." Prosecutions under the gross negligence provision of 18 U.S.C. Section 793(f) appear to be rare, but at least two service members were convicted under this provision, as applied through the UMCJ, for removing classified materials from a government workplace and failing to report or return the material upon discovering it had been removed.

(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.

The whole "gross negligence doesn't apply" argument itself does not apply. What usually happens when somebody is found to have been grossly negligent is that they lose their job and have their clearances revoked.

Kinda hard to tell a nation that the person who appears to have a very real shot at being the next President is grossly negligent with handling classified information. Mainly because anybody who's ever held a clearance would know that if that were them, they would've been shown the door and would never see another classified document in their lifetime.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Incorrect. Gross negligence is absolutely a prosecutable offense. Whether it's been done once or 100 times is immaterial to that.

It does matter. Can you find one case in which it was prosecuted without intent?

What usually happens when somebody is found to have been grossly negligent is that they lose their job and have their clearances revoked.

Bingo. That is what I have been saying all along. Such matters, unless intent can be found, are handled internally and not in the courts.