Did Hillary Just Burn Her "Get Out of Jail Card?"

[LoneLaugher]

The OP, like many Trump voters, seeks an authoritarian state where the POTUS has the authority to jail people.

She won't admit this....that would be uncomfortable. But...it is clearly the case.

Where do you get this crap from? It will be up to the attorney general to decide whether or not to charge and prosecute her for the pay to play scandal.

I get it from the words I responded to.

**** off.

 

[Muhammed]

BHO will pardon HIllary for any and all acts or failures to act -- watch for it -- shortly before he leaves office.

Ford (from the GOP) did the same for Nixon.

BHO (from the DEM's) will do the same for Hillary.

But, but, but she didn't intend to do anything wrong...The FBI said so! Were they wrong?

The FBI never said that in that in the first place.

They did. Said there was no "intent" when that is not part of the law in the first place.

Can you directly quote any FBI official publicly claiming that there was no "intent"?


Of course you can't, because it never happened.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

To refrain the question in the OP:

Is Trump such a insecure and emotional baby that he will prosecute the Clintons to punish Hillary for having the gall to challenge his victory?

That is certainly not the question. The question is, was he so easily taken in when she did a gracious concession phone call that he thought he would throw the law out of the picture? It's up to Jeff Sessions to demonstrate that even the elite criminal family will be held accountable. That is part of America.

Your (and Trump's hypothetical) desire to see the Clintons prosecuted has nothing to do with "the law", and everything to do with petty vindictiveness and emotional needs for revenge against your perceived enemies.

 

[Jackson]

BHO will pardon HIllary for any and all acts or failures to act -- watch for it -- shortly before he leaves office.

Ford (from the GOP) did the same for Nixon.

BHO (from the DEM's) will do the same for Hillary.

But, but, but she didn't intend to do anything wrong...The FBI said so! Were they wrong?

The FBI never said that in that in the first place.

They did. Said there was no "intent" when that is not part of the law in the first place.

Can you directly quote any FBI official publicly claiming that there was no "intent"?


Of course you can't, because it never happened.

1. There is no ‘necessary intent,’ Mr. Comey.

Comey keeps saying he did not find the “necessary intent.” There is no necessary intent. What is necessary is intent OR gross negligence. Comey should be forced to explain what more Hillary needed to do for him to find gross negligence.

There is no ‘necessary intent,’ Mr. Comey.


2. FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook


There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), 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.

Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services. Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States.

Read more at: FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook


3. Comey on Clinton email scandal: 'reasonable' minds disagree?
FBI Director James Comey relied heavily on eight words Tuesday when recommending that no charges be brought against Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email server.

"No reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case," Comey said.

The comments triggered a fierce debate between former prosecutors, government officials and legal experts on the exact definition of "reasonable" as it pertains to Clinton's case.

Why Comey stood alone: Inside the FBI's announcement

"A reasonable prosecutor could bring a case because the facts clearly establish many violations of law" said Joseph E. diGenova, a former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia appointed by Ronald Reagan. "Comey's statement that there was no intent is completely negated by the fact that Clinton used multiple private servers and devices which were unencrypted and thus she knew that classified information would be compromised."

He added: "This is simple stuff. It was clear to me that he was predisposed not to bring a case. This was a political decision, not a legal one."

FBI Director James Comey on Hillary Clinton email scandal: 'reasonable' minds disagree? - CNNPolitics.com

If you would kindly google this you will find many more links. Are you seriously saying this never happened?

 

[Jackson]

To refrain the question in the OP:

Is Trump such a insecure and emotional baby that he will prosecute the Clintons to punish Hillary for having the gall to challenge his victory?

That is certainly not the question. The question is, was he so easily taken in when she did a gracious concession phone call that he thought he would throw the law out of the picture? It's up to Jeff Sessions to demonstrate that even the elite criminal family will be held accountable. That is part of America.

Your (and Trump's hypothetical) desire to see the Clintons prosecuted has nothing to do with "the law", and everything to do with petty vindictiveness and emotional needs for revenge against your perceived enemies.

It has everything to do with the law and who it is applied to.

 

[Muhammed]

BHO will pardon HIllary for any and all acts or failures to act -- watch for it -- shortly before he leaves office.

Ford (from the GOP) did the same for Nixon.

BHO (from the DEM's) will do the same for Hillary.

But, but, but she didn't intend to do anything wrong...The FBI said so! Were they wrong?

The FBI never said that in that in the first place.

They did. Said there was no "intent" when that is not part of the law in the first place.

Can you directly quote any FBI official publicly claiming that there was no "intent"?


Of course you can't, because it never happened.

1. There is no ‘necessary intent,’ Mr. Comey.

Comey keeps saying he did not find the “necessary intent.” There is no necessary intent. What is necessary is intent OR gross negligence. Comey should be forced to explain what more Hillary needed to do for him to find gross negligence.

There is no ‘necessary intent,’ Mr. Comey.


2. FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook


There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), 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.

Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services. Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States.

Read more at: FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook


3. Comey on Clinton email scandal: 'reasonable' minds disagree?
FBI Director James Comey relied heavily on eight words Tuesday when recommending that no charges be brought against Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email server.

"No reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case," Comey said.

The comments triggered a fierce debate between former prosecutors, government officials and legal experts on the exact definition of "reasonable" as it pertains to Clinton's case.

Why Comey stood alone: Inside the FBI's announcement

"A reasonable prosecutor could bring a case because the facts clearly establish many violations of law" said Joseph E. diGenova, a former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia appointed by Ronald Reagan. "Comey's statement that there was no intent is completely negated by the fact that Clinton used multiple private servers and devices which were unencrypted and thus she knew that classified information would be compromised."

He added: "This is simple stuff. It was clear to me that he was predisposed not to bring a case. This was a political decision, not a legal one."

FBI Director James Comey on Hillary Clinton email scandal: 'reasonable' minds disagree? - CNNPolitics.com

If you would kindly google this you will find many more links. Are you seriously saying this never happened?

In other words, you cannot directly quote anybody at the FBI saying that there was no intent.

The reason that you can't is because no FBI spokesman ever said that.

 

[jknowgood]

The OP, like many Trump voters, seeks an authoritarian state where the POTUS has the authority to jail people.

She won't admit this....that would be uncomfortable. But...it is clearly the case.

Maybe Trump can use Obama's tactic, and sick the irs on you. Since you supported it.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The OP, like many Trump voters, seeks an authoritarian state where the POTUS has the authority to jail people.

She won't admit this....that would be uncomfortable. But...it is clearly the case.

Maybe Trump can use Obama's tactic, and sick the irs on you. Since you supported it.

He never did that. Try harder. You guys have lies upon lies.

 

[dannyboys]

BHO will pardon HIllary for any and all acts or failures to act -- watch for it -- shortly before he leaves office.

Ford (from the GOP) did the same for Nixon.

BHO (from the DEM's) will do the same for Hillary.

BONOBO has ZERO 'legacy' left anyways.
IF he were to pardon Hillary President Trump's new AG, and the FBI, who ******* LOATH!! the Clintons, are going to find a way to make the rest of Hillary's life an ******* living daily nightmare!
Jill Stein was personally responsible for Hillary losing.
Everyone with a ******* brain knows it.
She 'Nadered' Hillary 'BIGLEY'!!!!!

 

[dannyboys]

To refrain the question in the OP:

Is Trump such a insecure and emotional baby that he will prosecute the Clintons to punish Hillary for having the gall to challenge his victory?

President Trump craps bigger than Hillary and all her ******* queer Robby Mooks.
Trump is a genius!
He said HE would not prosecute Hillary. He DID NOT say the new AG won't.
Trump can say: "Look I said I wouldn't prosecute Hillary. But I can't go against the law."
Pure ******* GENIUS!

 

[dannyboys]

The OP, like many Trump voters, seeks an authoritarian state where the POTUS has the authority to jail people.

She won't admit this....that would be uncomfortable. But...it is clearly the case.

People who break laws get jailed.......until they do your govt will keep sliding into the abyss

I break the law every day, and I've never been "jailed".

You do, too.

If you had done a thousandth of what Hillary has done for decades YOU certainly WOULD be in a federal prison..

 

[jknowgood]

The OP, like many Trump voters, seeks an authoritarian state where the POTUS has the authority to jail people.

She won't admit this....that would be uncomfortable. But...it is clearly the case.

Maybe Trump can use Obama's tactic, and sick the irs on you. Since you supported it.

He never did that. Try harder. You guys have lies upon lies.

Yes he did. The head of the irs had to resign, and pleaded the 5th when questioned about it. So Trump has a new power that Obama gave him with your support. I told y'all that blindly supporting Obama would come back to bite you in the ass.

 

[dannyboys]

To refrain the question in the OP:

Is Trump such a insecure and emotional baby that he will prosecute the Clintons to punish Hillary for having the gall to challenge his victory?

That is certainly not the question. The question is, was he so easily taken in when she did a gracious concession phone call that he thought he would throw the law out of the picture? It's up to Jeff Sessions to demonstrate that even the elite criminal family will be held accountable. That is part of America.

Your (and Trump's hypothetical) desire to see the Clintons prosecuted has nothing to do with "the law", and everything to do with petty vindictiveness and emotional needs for revenge against your perceived enemies.

So if the FBI after their exhaustive investigation into the Clinton Foundation finds cause to recommend criminal charges be brought against Hillary and gives this recommendation to the AG what should the AG do?
Go have a ******* attempted secret meeting with Bill?
Well?

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

To refrain the question in the OP:

Is Trump such a insecure and emotional baby that he will prosecute the Clintons to punish Hillary for having the gall to challenge his victory?

How does one "refrain" a quest in another person post? I thought one could "refrain" from asking a question in their own post.

Maybe I am wrong. I don't speak Liberal. I'm not bi-lingual, unfortunately.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The OP, like many Trump voters, seeks an authoritarian state where the POTUS has the authority to jail people.

She won't admit this....that would be uncomfortable. But...it is clearly the case.

Maybe Trump can use Obama's tactic, and sick the irs on you. Since you supported it.

He never did that. Try harder. You guys have lies upon lies.

Yes he did. The head of the irs had to resign, and pleaded the 5th when questioned about it. So Trump has a new power that Obama gave him with your support. I told y'all that blindly supporting Obama would come back to bite you in the ass.

An example of how lies permeate the brains of the willing.

 

[Jackson]

But, but, but she didn't intend to do anything wrong...The FBI said so! Were they wrong?

The FBI never said that in that in the first place.

They did. Said there was no "intent" when that is not part of the law in the first place.

Can you directly quote any FBI official publicly claiming that there was no "intent"?


Of course you can't, because it never happened.

1. There is no ‘necessary intent,’ Mr. Comey.

Comey keeps saying he did not find the “necessary intent.” There is no necessary intent. What is necessary is intent OR gross negligence. Comey should be forced to explain what more Hillary needed to do for him to find gross negligence.

There is no ‘necessary intent,’ Mr. Comey.


2. FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook


There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), 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.

Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services. Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States.

Read more at: FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook


3. Comey on Clinton email scandal: 'reasonable' minds disagree?
FBI Director James Comey relied heavily on eight words Tuesday when recommending that no charges be brought against Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email server.

"No reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case," Comey said.

The comments triggered a fierce debate between former prosecutors, government officials and legal experts on the exact definition of "reasonable" as it pertains to Clinton's case.

Why Comey stood alone: Inside the FBI's announcement

"A reasonable prosecutor could bring a case because the facts clearly establish many violations of law" said Joseph E. diGenova, a former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia appointed by Ronald Reagan. "Comey's statement that there was no intent is completely negated by the fact that Clinton used multiple private servers and devices which were unencrypted and thus she knew that classified information would be compromised."

He added: "This is simple stuff. It was clear to me that he was predisposed not to bring a case. This was a political decision, not a legal one."

FBI Director James Comey on Hillary Clinton email scandal: 'reasonable' minds disagree? - CNNPolitics.com

If you would kindly google this you will find many more links. Are you seriously saying this never happened?

In other words, you cannot directly quote anybody at the FBI saying that there was no intent.

The reason that you can't is because no FBI spokesman ever said that.

Are you alright? You must be playing. Or you are a certified moron. And that is a first. I have never called anyone a moron on this board. The Director of the FBI said it. I have proven you wrong...not prove to me you're right.

 

[Jackson]

BHO will pardon HIllary for any and all acts or failures to act -- watch for it -- shortly before he leaves office.

Ford (from the GOP) did the same for Nixon.

BHO (from the DEM's) will do the same for Hillary.

BONOBO has ZERO 'legacy' left anyways.
IF he were to pardon Hillary President Trump's new AG, and the FBI, who ******* LOATH!! the Clintons, are going to find a way to make the rest of Hillary's life an ******* living daily nightmare!
Jill Stein was personally responsible for Hillary losing.
Everyone with a ******* brain knows it.
She 'Nadered' Hillary 'BIGLEY'!!!!!

I would add, Trump was certainly also responsible for her defeat. When you actually think about it. Her actions and lies were most responsible for her defeat. And she should take responsibility for it.

 

[Muhammed]

The FBI never said that in that in the first place.

They did. Said there was no "intent" when that is not part of the law in the first place.

Can you directly quote any FBI official publicly claiming that there was no "intent"?


Of course you can't, because it never happened.

1. There is no ‘necessary intent,’ Mr. Comey.

Comey keeps saying he did not find the “necessary intent.” There is no necessary intent. What is necessary is intent OR gross negligence. Comey should be forced to explain what more Hillary needed to do for him to find gross negligence.

There is no ‘necessary intent,’ Mr. Comey.


2. FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook


There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), 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.

Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services. Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States.

Read more at: FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook


3. Comey on Clinton email scandal: 'reasonable' minds disagree?
FBI Director James Comey relied heavily on eight words Tuesday when recommending that no charges be brought against Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email server.

"No reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case," Comey said.

The comments triggered a fierce debate between former prosecutors, government officials and legal experts on the exact definition of "reasonable" as it pertains to Clinton's case.

Why Comey stood alone: Inside the FBI's announcement

"A reasonable prosecutor could bring a case because the facts clearly establish many violations of law" said Joseph E. diGenova, a former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia appointed by Ronald Reagan. "Comey's statement that there was no intent is completely negated by the fact that Clinton used multiple private servers and devices which were unencrypted and thus she knew that classified information would be compromised."

He added: "This is simple stuff. It was clear to me that he was predisposed not to bring a case. This was a political decision, not a legal one."

FBI Director James Comey on Hillary Clinton email scandal: 'reasonable' minds disagree? - CNNPolitics.com

If you would kindly google this you will find many more links. Are you seriously saying this never happened?

In other words, you cannot directly quote anybody at the FBI saying that there was no intent.

The reason that you can't is because no FBI spokesman ever said that.

The Director of the FBI said it.

That is a ridiculous lie.

When did the FBI director say that there was no intent?

Obviously you cannot specify the date and time because he never said that. Brainwashed ignorant fools may believe he said that, but that does not make it true.

Are you an ignorant fool? Can you admit that you were wrong?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

To refrain the question in the OP:

Is Trump such a insecure and emotional baby that he will prosecute the Clintons to punish Hillary for having the gall to challenge his victory?

How does one "refrain" a quest in another person post? I thought one could "refrain" from asking a question in their own post.

Maybe I am wrong. I don't speak Liberal. I'm not bi-lingual, unfortunately.

*Reframe. Now that you've accomplished pointing out my autocorrect mistake, do you have anything of substance to add?

 

[Jackson]

They did. Said there was no "intent" when that is not part of the law in the first place.

Can you directly quote any FBI official publicly claiming that there was no "intent"?


Of course you can't, because it never happened.

1. There is no ‘necessary intent,’ Mr. Comey.

Comey keeps saying he did not find the “necessary intent.” There is no necessary intent. What is necessary is intent OR gross negligence. Comey should be forced to explain what more Hillary needed to do for him to find gross negligence.

There is no ‘necessary intent,’ Mr. Comey.


2. FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook


There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), 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.

Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services. Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States.

Read more at: FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook


3. Comey on Clinton email scandal: 'reasonable' minds disagree?
FBI Director James Comey relied heavily on eight words Tuesday when recommending that no charges be brought against Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email server.

"No reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case," Comey said.

The comments triggered a fierce debate between former prosecutors, government officials and legal experts on the exact definition of "reasonable" as it pertains to Clinton's case.

Why Comey stood alone: Inside the FBI's announcement

"A reasonable prosecutor could bring a case because the facts clearly establish many violations of law" said Joseph E. diGenova, a former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia appointed by Ronald Reagan. "Comey's statement that there was no intent is completely negated by the fact that Clinton used multiple private servers and devices which were unencrypted and thus she knew that classified information would be compromised."

He added: "This is simple stuff. It was clear to me that he was predisposed not to bring a case. This was a political decision, not a legal one."

FBI Director James Comey on Hillary Clinton email scandal: 'reasonable' minds disagree? - CNNPolitics.com

If you would kindly google this you will find many more links. Are you seriously saying this never happened?

In other words, you cannot directly quote anybody at the FBI saying that there was no intent.

The reason that you can't is because no FBI spokesman ever said that.

The Director of the FBI said it.

That is a ridiculous lie.

When did the FBI director say that there was no intent?

Obviously you cannot specify the date and time because he never said that. Brainwashed ignorant fools may believe he said that, but that does not make it true.

Are you an ignorant fool? Can you admit that you were wrong?

You, my dear are the ultimate fool. If that helps you get by in this world, I cannot stand in your way.