Hillary's God Damned Emails Issue Was Created By The White House....Not Republicans

[Kosh]

What laws did she break Mud? FBI never said she broke any laws, so who is telling you that she broke the law?

The FBI doesn't have to say anything. She swore under oath that she turned everything over....except her personal emails....which she deleted. She signed an oath to that fact.

Instead the FBI reports that so far over 400 emails that were not turned over were not personal, but official emails....many of which were highly classified. So the laws she broke are apparent. Lying under oath....or perjury, failure to turn over all State Department communications, attempted destruction of incriminating evidence, or obstruction of justice, and mishandling of classified transmissions.

Just the mishandling charge would give her 10 years minimum.

You guys think that stupid fiasco last night bailed her out completely.

You're living in a fantasy world lady.

Well we would have to wait for a Republican to be elected as president before she would be put in jail..

 

[Jackson]

What laws did she break Mud? FBI never said she broke any laws, so who is telling you that she broke the law?

HERE is a detailed look at what laws she BROKE and names the sections and laws by QUOTE and it refers by code and paragraph what laws she has broken. Seven minutes AND it calls for PRISON.

Thank you, DF!

 

[Kosh]

What laws did she break Mud? FBI never said she broke any laws, so who is telling you that she broke the law?

HERE is a detailed look at what laws she BROKE and names the sections and laws by QUOTE and it refers by code and paragraph what laws she has broken. Seven minutes AND it calls for PRISON.

Thank you, DF!

Yes but the Clinton broke that law back in the 90's, but they were in charge at the time. So they got away with it..

 

[Jackson]

I said this in another post

If she broke laws, charge her for the crime!!
The more this drags on, the more I will say the GOP is behind this.

Charge her already! Anything new pops up , charge her with that too!!

The moment the investigators discovered a crime, they should bust her ass. Perp walk her to the holding cell.

But it has not happened yet!! Why not?

Gathering all the info they can from people who do not want to talk is a tedious job.

 

[mudwhistle]

What laws did she break Mud? FBI never said she broke any laws, so who is telling you that she broke the law?

The FBI doesn't have to say anything. She swore under oath that she turned everything over....except her personal emails....which she deleted. She signed an oath to that fact.

Instead the FBI reports that so far over 400 emails that were not turned over were not personal, but official emails....many of which were highly classified. So the laws she broke are apparent. Lying under oath....or perjury, failure to turn over all State Department communications, attempted destruction of incriminating evidence, or obstruction of justice, and mishandling of classified transmissions.

Just the mishandling charge would give her 10 years minimum.

You guys think that stupid fiasco last night bailed her out completely.

You're living in a fantasy world lady.

Well we would have to wait for a Republican to be elected as president before she would be put in jail..

I think Obama wants to nail her ass, but she'll cop a plea and end up ratting him out for something.

The chances of the GOP ever putting her in jail are slim to none. It's unseemly throwing a former First Lady in prison.......no matter how much a criminal she is.

 

[DarkFury]

I said this in another post

If she broke laws, charge her for the crime!!
The more this drags on, the more I will say the GOP is behind this.

Charge her already! Anything new pops up , charge her with that too!!

The moment the investigators discovered a crime, they should bust her ass. Perp walk her to the holding cell.

But it has not happened yet!! Why not?

Gathering all the info they can from people who do not want to talk is a tedious job.

And when you really find one that could bust things up and they plead the 5th? Harder still.

 

[Kosh]

I said this in another post

If she broke laws, charge her for the crime!!
The more this drags on, the more I will say the GOP is behind this.

Charge her already! Anything new pops up , charge her with that too!!

The moment the investigators discovered a crime, they should bust her ass. Perp walk her to the holding cell.

But it has not happened yet!! Why not?

Gathering all the info they can from people who do not want to talk is a tedious job.

Or getting all the info from people that claimed they did not have it, but did have it. Is the same process..

This is no different than what happened in the Bush years with what's here name. However that was not based on the deaths of four Americans..

 

[Kosh]

What laws did she break Mud? FBI never said she broke any laws, so who is telling you that she broke the law?

The FBI doesn't have to say anything. She swore under oath that she turned everything over....except her personal emails....which she deleted. She signed an oath to that fact.

Instead the FBI reports that so far over 400 emails that were not turned over were not personal, but official emails....many of which were highly classified. So the laws she broke are apparent. Lying under oath....or perjury, failure to turn over all State Department communications, attempted destruction of incriminating evidence, or obstruction of justice, and mishandling of classified transmissions.

Just the mishandling charge would give her 10 years minimum.

You guys think that stupid fiasco last night bailed her out completely.

You're living in a fantasy world lady.

Well we would have to wait for a Republican to be elected as president before she would be put in jail..

I think Obama wants to nail her ass, but she'll cop a plea and end up ratting him out for something.

The chances of the GOP ever putting her in jail are slim to none. It's unseemly throwing a former First Lady in prison.......no matter how much a criminal she is.

All Clinton has to do is plead the fifth and then not much else can happen, unless the FBI can find over whelming evidence and conspiracy to cover up. None the less the law has been broke and she should not be allowed to hold any official office in the US government.

 

[Obiwan]

What laws did she break Mud? FBI never said she broke any laws, so who is telling you that she broke the law?

The FBI doesn't have to say anything. She swore under oath that she turned everything over....except her personal emails....which she deleted. She signed an oath to that fact.

Instead the FBI reports that so far over 400 emails that were not turned over were not personal, but official emails....many of which were highly classified. So the laws she broke are apparent. Lying under oath....or perjury, failure to turn over all State Department communications, attempted destruction of incriminating evidence, or obstruction of justice, and mishandling of classified transmissions.

Just the mishandling charge would give her 10 years minimum.

You guys think that stupid fiasco last night bailed her out completely.

You're living in a fantasy world lady.

Well we would have to wait for a Republican to be elected as president before she would be put in jail..

I think Obama wants to nail her ass, but she'll cop a plea and end up ratting him out for something.

The chances of the GOP ever putting her in jail are slim to none. It's unseemly throwing a former First Lady in prison.......no matter how much a criminal she is.

All Clinton has to do is plead the fifth and then not much else can happen, unless the FBI can find over whelming evidence and conspiracy to cover up. None the less the law has been broke and she should not be allowed to hold any official office in the US government.

Pleading the Fifth should be evidence of criminal behavior...

Decide it in the court of public opinion...

GUILTY!!!

 

[DarkFury]

What laws did she break Mud? FBI never said she broke any laws, so who is telling you that she broke the law?

The FBI doesn't have to say anything. She swore under oath that she turned everything over....except her personal emails....which she deleted. She signed an oath to that fact.

Instead the FBI reports that so far over 400 emails that were not turned over were not personal, but official emails....many of which were highly classified. So the laws she broke are apparent. Lying under oath....or perjury, failure to turn over all State Department communications, attempted destruction of incriminating evidence, or obstruction of justice, and mishandling of classified transmissions.

Just the mishandling charge would give her 10 years minimum.

You guys think that stupid fiasco last night bailed her out completely.

You're living in a fantasy world lady.

Well we would have to wait for a Republican to be elected as president before she would be put in jail..

I think Obama wants to nail her ass, but she'll cop a plea and end up ratting him out for something.

The chances of the GOP ever putting her in jail are slim to none. It's unseemly throwing a former First Lady in prison.......no matter how much a criminal she is.

All Clinton has to do is plead the fifth and then not much else can happen, unless the FBI can find over whelming evidence and conspiracy to cover up. None the less the law has been broke and she should not be allowed to hold any official office in the US government.

The 5th does not work that way. Say the fellow who already pleaded the 5th is given immunity. He is the LEGALLY compelled to testify OR go to prison.

 

[rdean]

but we already know that, but its still started under the Bush Administration,,,right?

Right.

 

[Theowl32]

The birther issue was started by the clintons.

The WMDs in Iraq was propagated by the democrats.

The democrats started the KKK

The democrats voted against the civil rights act.

On and on we go.

Their voters, ALL OF THEM, are useless idiots. That is all they are. They just buy into the entire class warfare lie, gender warfare lie, the global warming 1.5 trillion dollar industry lie.

It is just a part of our vernacular and for us that know better, it is like pissing in the wind.

We are truly fucked, and I do blame it ALL on the morons on the left who ALLOW themselves to be this fucking stupid.

 

[DarkFury]

What laws did she break Mud? FBI never said she broke any laws, so who is telling you that she broke the law?

The FBI doesn't have to say anything. She swore under oath that she turned everything over....except her personal emails....which she deleted. She signed an oath to that fact.

Instead the FBI reports that so far over 400 emails that were not turned over were not personal, but official emails....many of which were highly classified. So the laws she broke are apparent. Lying under oath....or perjury, failure to turn over all State Department communications, attempted destruction of incriminating evidence, or obstruction of justice, and mishandling of classified transmissions.

Just the mishandling charge would give her 10 years minimum.

You guys think that stupid fiasco last night bailed her out completely.

You're living in a fantasy world lady.

Well we would have to wait for a Republican to be elected as president before she would be put in jail..

I think Obama wants to nail her ass, but she'll cop a plea and end up ratting him out for something.

The chances of the GOP ever putting her in jail are slim to none. It's unseemly throwing a former First Lady in prison.......no matter how much a criminal she is.

All Clinton has to do is plead the fifth and then not much else can happen, unless the FBI can find over whelming evidence and conspiracy to cover up. None the less the law has been broke and she should not be allowed to hold any official office in the US government.

Pleading the Fifth should be evidence of criminal behavior...

Decide it in the court of public opinion...

GUILTY!!!

The 5th is NOT valid before Congress. ONLY in civilian courts.
"2. An Untouchable Right . . . Within Limits Despite the general applicability of the Fifth Amendment to congressional investigations, there are some significant differences between its congressional and judicial assertions. One key distinction is that a witness may not refuse to give testimony in front of Congress, but a defendant in a criminal trial may decline to take the stand. Specific questions posed by Congress may be avoided, but the right not to testify belongs solely to criminal defendants on trial. If a defendant testifies and is then asked questions that could be incriminating, he is given a "lose-lose" choice, which is no choice at all: either the defendant refuses to answer the particular question, pleading the Fifth Amendment (which may prejudice the jury) or he responds and self-incriminates. As there is no "defendant" on trial during a congressional investigation, there is no need to permit a witness the option to refuse to testify. Furthermore, Congress may grant immunity to a witness such that information gleaned in a congressional investigation may not be used in a subsequent criminal trial against that witness. Thus the congressional demand for information outweighs any potential right the witness may assert. A second difference lies with the pertinency requirement of Congress. Once again reviewing a witness's conviction of contempt for refusal to answer questions posed by HUAC, the Supreme Court heard Barenblatt v. United States. This time, the Court continued to emphasize that Congress is bound to uphold individual constitutional rights, but the Court affirmed Barenblatt's conviction, stating that "a conviction for contempt . . . cannot stand unless the questions asked are pertinent to the subject matter of the investigation." Distinguishing Watkins, the Court found that Watkins had explicitly refused to answer the questions on the basis that they were not pertinent to the investigation. Furthermore, the questions were vague, overly broad, and at times clearly unrelated to the stated purpose of the investigation. In contrast, Barenblatt had not referenced pertinency grounds when refusing to answer questions. The Court held that the "the citizen, when interrogated about his private affairs, has a right before answering to know why the inquiry is made; and if the purpose disclosed is not a legitimate one, he may not be compelled to answer." But, "the scope of the Committee's authority [is] for the House, not a witness, to determine, subject to the ultimate reviewing responsibility of this Court." Barenblatt had failed to cite pertinency, but more damning, Congress had made clear to the witness the relevance of the questions, eliminating any possible pertinency objection. Thus, Barenblatt's conviction stood. James Hamilton, Robert F. Muse and Kevin R. Amer, Congressional Investigations: Politics and Process, 44 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 1115, 1129-1131 (2007):

Federal Tax Crimes: Fifth Amendment and Immunity in Congressional Hearings (3/6/14; 3/11/14)