PROVEN: Hillary Clinton DID COMPROMISE U.S. National Security

[iceberg]

Hillary Clinton lied to the FBI. Flynn was convicted and she walks free. Equal application of the law??????

No she didn't, yes he did. There in is the difference son.

Trump falsely claims Clinton lied to FBI

the difference is you won't admit it.

FBI Interview Catches Hillary Clinton In Multiple Lies
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...ows-hillary-clinton-lied-and-got-away-with-it

this is why you get zero sympathy for your views. you're a 1 way street, son.

You uncritically post bullshit from rw bullshit websites and then you complain that I supposedly don't have credibility.

FBI investigation "found no evidence that any of the additional work-related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them."

Comey testified before congress, under the threat of purjury, that FBI had no evidence to think Clinton was lying to them.

Trump: Clinton deleted 33,000 emails after getting subpoena

Now WTF do you think you know that a Director of FBI did not about this case?

its not necessary to "intend" to commit a crime in order to commit a crime.

lets try this "but officer, I didn't intend to go 80 in a 45 zone, so using the Hillary doctrine you have to let me go free"

The fact that you consciously and purposefully pressed the accelerator demonstrates "intent".

Now, on the other hand - if your accelerator jammed, and caused you to accelerate to 80 unintentionally, it is unlikely that you would be charged with speeding.

Does that help you understand how it works?

but what is i was building a private accelerator and it stuck? am i responsible for my actions when i go around common practice?

 

[AntonToo]

The simple conclusion is that "expectations" from February 2017 turned out WRONG, as even Trump conceded long ago by admitting that Flynn lied to FBI.

You fools live somewhere out on the moon, getting spoon fed total bullshit that you swallow uncritically.

this coming from someone who only got mad at the family separation shit when the democrats made it an issue for you TO get mad at.

Can you quote me on that?

No you can't, because what you just said is MADE UP, I personally don't see what the big fuss is with the separation issue.

Do you enjoy looking like fool?

show me 1 post where you were dogging obama for it.

i'll wait.

idiot, why the hell would I dog Obama for something I don't consider to be a serious issue?

dunno. why do you constantly bag on everyone and insult them with every passing post?

you gotta be you.

I'll make you a deal, you stop posting idiotic nonsense and I'll stop calling you an idiot. Ok?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

No she didn't, yes he did. There in is the difference son.

Trump falsely claims Clinton lied to FBI

the difference is you won't admit it.

FBI Interview Catches Hillary Clinton In Multiple Lies
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...ows-hillary-clinton-lied-and-got-away-with-it

this is why you get zero sympathy for your views. you're a 1 way street, son.

You uncritically post bullshit from rw bullshit websites and then you complain that I supposedly don't have credibility.

FBI investigation "found no evidence that any of the additional work-related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them."

Comey testified before congress, under the threat of purjury, that FBI had no evidence to think Clinton was lying to them.

Trump: Clinton deleted 33,000 emails after getting subpoena

Now WTF do you think you know that a Director of FBI did not about this case?

its not necessary to "intend" to commit a crime in order to commit a crime.

lets try this "but officer, I didn't intend to go 80 in a 45 zone, so using the Hillary doctrine you have to let me go free"

The fact that you consciously and purposefully pressed the accelerator demonstrates "intent".

Now, on the other hand - if your accelerator jammed, and caused you to accelerate to 80 unintentionally, it is unlikely that you would be charged with speeding.

Does that help you understand how it works?

bullshit, you are responsible for keeping your car under the speed limit, equipment failure is not an excuse.

You are incorrect.

This is a fundamental part of our legal system that you don't seem to be understanding. Intent matters.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

No she didn't, yes he did. There in is the difference son.

Trump falsely claims Clinton lied to FBI

the difference is you won't admit it.

FBI Interview Catches Hillary Clinton In Multiple Lies
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...ows-hillary-clinton-lied-and-got-away-with-it

this is why you get zero sympathy for your views. you're a 1 way street, son.

You uncritically post bullshit from rw bullshit websites and then you complain that I supposedly don't have credibility.

FBI investigation "found no evidence that any of the additional work-related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them."

Comey testified before congress, under the threat of purjury, that FBI had no evidence to think Clinton was lying to them.

Trump: Clinton deleted 33,000 emails after getting subpoena

Now WTF do you think you know that a Director of FBI did not about this case?

its not necessary to "intend" to commit a crime in order to commit a crime.

lets try this "but officer, I didn't intend to go 80 in a 45 zone, so using the Hillary doctrine you have to let me go free"

The fact that you consciously and purposefully pressed the accelerator demonstrates "intent".

Now, on the other hand - if your accelerator jammed, and caused you to accelerate to 80 unintentionally, it is unlikely that you would be charged with speeding.

Does that help you understand how it works?

but what is i was building a private accelerator and it stuck? am i responsible for my actions when i go around common practice?

What?

 

[iceberg]

this coming from someone who only got mad at the family separation shit when the democrats made it an issue for you TO get mad at.

Can you quote me on that?

No you can't, because what you just said is MADE UP, I personally don't see what the big fuss is with the separation issue.

Do you enjoy looking like fool?

show me 1 post where you were dogging obama for it.

i'll wait.

idiot, why the hell would I dog Obama for something I don't consider to be a serious issue?

dunno. why do you constantly bag on everyone and insult them with every passing post?

you gotta be you.

I'll make you a deal, you stop posting idiotic nonsense and I'll stop calling you an idiot. Ok?

i rest my case.

guess you were born with a size 18 dick up your ass and have been bitter about it ever since.

 

[easyt65]

As described in Chapter Seven of our report, the prosecutors concluded that the evidence did not support prosecution under any of these statutes for various reasons, including that former Secretary Clinton and her senior aides lacked the intent to communicate classified information on unclassified systems.

So we are NOT ONLY back to claiming Hillary DID break Laws, but was TOO STUPID to know she was breaking laws - as Comey says, we now have the IG openly declaring what Hillary THOUGHT when she broke all those laws, obviously opining that if you break laws and don't mean to do so then you should not be brought up on charges..... Sorta like if you accidently KILL someone but never meant to do it then you should not be charged....



The biggest thing that craps all over the IG's statement here is the fact that Hillary Clinton intentionally defied a subpoena directing her to turn over EVERYTHING - her server, files, devices, sim cards, etc....but instead she attempted to delete files, Bleach Bit her server in an intent to deny the investigators access to those files...that would later prove she violated FOIA and the Federal Records Act more than 15,000 times....illegally smashed devices with rocks, illegally stole and withheld sim cards, etc...

'Did not INTENTIONALLY break laws'?

Thank God not EVERY American is as STUPID as the snowflakes who swallow and parrot this shit......

You Reality -Denying Trump-Haters are a special breed and are making Jonathon Gruber proud!

 

[theDoctorisIn]

As described in Chapter Seven of our report, the prosecutors concluded that the evidence did not support prosecution under any of these statutes for various reasons, including that former Secretary Clinton and her senior aides lacked the intent to communicate classified information on unclassified systems.

So we are back to claiming Hillary DID break Laws, but not only was she TOO STUPID to know she was breaking laws -as Comey says, we now have the IG openly declaring what Hillary THOUGHT, obviously opining that if you break laws and don't mean to do so then you should not be brought up on charges..... Sorta like if you accidently KILL someone but never meant to do it then you should not be charged....



The biggest thing that craps all over the IG's statement here is the fact that Hillary Clinton intentionally defied a subpoena directing her to turn over EVERYTHING - her server, files, devices, sim cards, etc....but instead she attempted to delete files, Bleach Bit her server in an intent to deny the investigators access to those files...that would later prove she violated FOIA and the Federal Records Act more than 15,000 times....illegally smashed devices with rocks, illegally stole and withheld sim cards, etc...

'Did not INTENTIONALLY break laws'?

View attachment 199643


View attachment 199644


Thank God not EVERY American is as STUPID as the snowflakes who swallow and parrot this shit......

You Reality -Denying Trump-Haters are a special breed and are making Jonathon Gruber proud!

You've got it flipped around.

It's not that she broke the law unintentionally - she didn't break the law, because it was unintentional.

 

[iceberg]

the difference is you won't admit it.

FBI Interview Catches Hillary Clinton In Multiple Lies
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...ows-hillary-clinton-lied-and-got-away-with-it

this is why you get zero sympathy for your views. you're a 1 way street, son.

You uncritically post bullshit from rw bullshit websites and then you complain that I supposedly don't have credibility.

FBI investigation "found no evidence that any of the additional work-related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them."

Comey testified before congress, under the threat of purjury, that FBI had no evidence to think Clinton was lying to them.

Trump: Clinton deleted 33,000 emails after getting subpoena

Now WTF do you think you know that a Director of FBI did not about this case?

its not necessary to "intend" to commit a crime in order to commit a crime.

lets try this "but officer, I didn't intend to go 80 in a 45 zone, so using the Hillary doctrine you have to let me go free"

The fact that you consciously and purposefully pressed the accelerator demonstrates "intent".

Now, on the other hand - if your accelerator jammed, and caused you to accelerate to 80 unintentionally, it is unlikely that you would be charged with speeding.

Does that help you understand how it works?

but what is i was building a private accelerator and it stuck? am i responsible for my actions when i go around common practice?

What?

if they reworked / built the accelerator for whatever reason they deemed necessary. if they did this and then it went bad and killed someone, are you responsible for the work you did on said accelerator or can you go "sorry, not my intent"?

we can't walk away from the consequences of our actions as if the things we did were common and normal at the time when they were not.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You uncritically post bullshit from rw bullshit websites and then you complain that I supposedly don't have credibility.

FBI investigation "found no evidence that any of the additional work-related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them."

Comey testified before congress, under the threat of purjury, that FBI had no evidence to think Clinton was lying to them.

Trump: Clinton deleted 33,000 emails after getting subpoena

Now WTF do you think you know that a Director of FBI did not about this case?

its not necessary to "intend" to commit a crime in order to commit a crime.

lets try this "but officer, I didn't intend to go 80 in a 45 zone, so using the Hillary doctrine you have to let me go free"

The fact that you consciously and purposefully pressed the accelerator demonstrates "intent".

Now, on the other hand - if your accelerator jammed, and caused you to accelerate to 80 unintentionally, it is unlikely that you would be charged with speeding.

Does that help you understand how it works?

but what is i was building a private accelerator and it stuck? am i responsible for my actions when i go around common practice?

What?

if they reworked the accelerator for whatever reason they deemed necessary. if they did this and then it went bad and killed someone, are you responsible for the work you did on said accelerator or can you go "sorry, not my intent"?

we can't walk away from the consequences of our actions as if the things we did were common and normal at the time when they were not.

Criminally, you wouldn't be responsible, unless you intentionally rigged your "private accelerator" to become jammed.

Civilly, you could be held responsible for your own shoddy workmanship, if you were in an accident because of it.

ETA: I see that you introduced a new element here - that the accident "killed someone".

In that case, if your own shoddy workmanship was determined to be so shoddy that it was reckless to drive with it, you could be charged with manslaughter.

 

[easyt65]

You've got it flipped around.

It's not that she broke the law unintentionally - she didn't break the law, because it was unintentional.

So, she broke the law by killing the guy (committing espionage / obstruction) unintentionally, she is not guilty of killing the guy (committing Obstruction / espionage) because it was unintentional?!

WTF? That's not how it works, dude.

The FELON KNOWINGLY broke more than 15,000 laws - to include Obstruction in which she tried to hide her crimes by violating a subpoena. The ***** is guilty and should be in prison.

How can you tell (other than common sense)? Give it 'the other guy' test - would liberals be arguing so rabidly in defense of Donald Trump if it had been him who did everything Hillary was proven to have done?

HELL NO!

Case closed.....

 

[iceberg]

its not necessary to "intend" to commit a crime in order to commit a crime.

lets try this "but officer, I didn't intend to go 80 in a 45 zone, so using the Hillary doctrine you have to let me go free"

The fact that you consciously and purposefully pressed the accelerator demonstrates "intent".

Now, on the other hand - if your accelerator jammed, and caused you to accelerate to 80 unintentionally, it is unlikely that you would be charged with speeding.

Does that help you understand how it works?

but what is i was building a private accelerator and it stuck? am i responsible for my actions when i go around common practice?

What?

if they reworked the accelerator for whatever reason they deemed necessary. if they did this and then it went bad and killed someone, are you responsible for the work you did on said accelerator or can you go "sorry, not my intent"?

we can't walk away from the consequences of our actions as if the things we did were common and normal at the time when they were not.

Criminally, you wouldn't be responsible, unless you intentionally rigged your "private accelerator" to become jammed.

Civilly, you could be held responsible for your own shoddy workmanship, if you were in an accident because of it.

then hillary built the server - she is responsible for what happens on it.

the problem these days is no one wants to be accountable for their actions because we're too busy judging the actions of others.

she built the damn thing. she owns whatever happens from it.

anything else is pure chicken shit.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The fact that you consciously and purposefully pressed the accelerator demonstrates "intent".

Now, on the other hand - if your accelerator jammed, and caused you to accelerate to 80 unintentionally, it is unlikely that you would be charged with speeding.

Does that help you understand how it works?

but what is i was building a private accelerator and it stuck? am i responsible for my actions when i go around common practice?

What?

if they reworked the accelerator for whatever reason they deemed necessary. if they did this and then it went bad and killed someone, are you responsible for the work you did on said accelerator or can you go "sorry, not my intent"?

we can't walk away from the consequences of our actions as if the things we did were common and normal at the time when they were not.

Criminally, you wouldn't be responsible, unless you intentionally rigged your "private accelerator" to become jammed.

Civilly, you could be held responsible for your own shoddy workmanship, if you were in an accident because of it.

then hillary built the server - she is responsible for what happens on it.

the problem these days is no one wants to be accountable for their actions because we're too busy judging the actions of others.

she built the damn thing. she owns whatever happens from it.

anything else is pure chicken shit.

Hillary's server is entirely irrelevant to any charges of mishandling classified material. I don't know why you guys can't get that through your heads.

 

[iceberg]

but what is i was building a private accelerator and it stuck? am i responsible for my actions when i go around common practice?

What?

if they reworked the accelerator for whatever reason they deemed necessary. if they did this and then it went bad and killed someone, are you responsible for the work you did on said accelerator or can you go "sorry, not my intent"?

we can't walk away from the consequences of our actions as if the things we did were common and normal at the time when they were not.

Criminally, you wouldn't be responsible, unless you intentionally rigged your "private accelerator" to become jammed.

Civilly, you could be held responsible for your own shoddy workmanship, if you were in an accident because of it.

then hillary built the server - she is responsible for what happens on it.

the problem these days is no one wants to be accountable for their actions because we're too busy judging the actions of others.

she built the damn thing. she owns whatever happens from it.

anything else is pure chicken shit.

Hillary's server is entirely irrelevant to any charges of mishandling classified material. I don't know why you guys can't get that through your heads.

why can't you get it through your head she did it to hide?

if trump were to make his own server to communicate with - would you give it the same "all clear, boss" or would you say trump is hiding something?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You've got it flipped around.

It's not that she broke the law unintentionally - she didn't break the law, because it was unintentional.

So, she broke the law by killing the guy (committing espionage / obstruction) unintentionally, she is not guilty of killing the guy (committing Obstruction / espionage) because it was unintentional?!

WTF? That's not how it works, dude.

It is how it works.

Every law on the books has, as part of it's statutory language, two components. In the legal world, they're known as "actus reas" and "mens rea" - which translate approximately to "bad act" and "culpable mental state".

If you were to kill someone accidentally and through no fault of your own, you have not committed a crime.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

What?

if they reworked the accelerator for whatever reason they deemed necessary. if they did this and then it went bad and killed someone, are you responsible for the work you did on said accelerator or can you go "sorry, not my intent"?

we can't walk away from the consequences of our actions as if the things we did were common and normal at the time when they were not.

Criminally, you wouldn't be responsible, unless you intentionally rigged your "private accelerator" to become jammed.

Civilly, you could be held responsible for your own shoddy workmanship, if you were in an accident because of it.

then hillary built the server - she is responsible for what happens on it.

the problem these days is no one wants to be accountable for their actions because we're too busy judging the actions of others.

she built the damn thing. she owns whatever happens from it.

anything else is pure chicken shit.

Hillary's server is entirely irrelevant to any charges of mishandling classified material. I don't know why you guys can't get that through your heads.

why can't you get it through your head she did it to hide?

if trump were to make his own server to communicate with - would you give it the same "all clear, boss" or would you say trump is hiding something?

To hide what?

It was not against the law for Clinton to set up a private server for her email. Full stop.

 

[iceberg]

if they reworked the accelerator for whatever reason they deemed necessary. if they did this and then it went bad and killed someone, are you responsible for the work you did on said accelerator or can you go "sorry, not my intent"?

we can't walk away from the consequences of our actions as if the things we did were common and normal at the time when they were not.

Criminally, you wouldn't be responsible, unless you intentionally rigged your "private accelerator" to become jammed.

Civilly, you could be held responsible for your own shoddy workmanship, if you were in an accident because of it.

then hillary built the server - she is responsible for what happens on it.

the problem these days is no one wants to be accountable for their actions because we're too busy judging the actions of others.

she built the damn thing. she owns whatever happens from it.

anything else is pure chicken shit.

Hillary's server is entirely irrelevant to any charges of mishandling classified material. I don't know why you guys can't get that through your heads.

why can't you get it through your head she did it to hide?

if trump were to make his own server to communicate with - would you give it the same "all clear, boss" or would you say trump is hiding something?

To hide what?

It was not against the law for Clinton to set up a private server for her email. Full stop.

so - if trump sets up his own server, you're cool with it? hides / deletes mail from it when asked for it. hires 3rd party companies to scrub the drives - all this would be cool with you if trump did it.

 

[LaDexter]

It is hilarious to see the Hillary CULT is still in action....

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Criminally, you wouldn't be responsible, unless you intentionally rigged your "private accelerator" to become jammed.

Civilly, you could be held responsible for your own shoddy workmanship, if you were in an accident because of it.

then hillary built the server - she is responsible for what happens on it.

the problem these days is no one wants to be accountable for their actions because we're too busy judging the actions of others.

she built the damn thing. she owns whatever happens from it.

anything else is pure chicken shit.

Hillary's server is entirely irrelevant to any charges of mishandling classified material. I don't know why you guys can't get that through your heads.

why can't you get it through your head she did it to hide?

if trump were to make his own server to communicate with - would you give it the same "all clear, boss" or would you say trump is hiding something?

To hide what?

It was not against the law for Clinton to set up a private server for her email. Full stop.

so - if trump sets up his own server, you're cool with it? hides / deletes mail from it when asked for it. hires 3rd party companies to scrub the drives - all this would be cool with you if trump did it.

You're having an issue with how you're phrasing your question. I'm not talking about my feelings, I'm talking about the law.

As far as I understand it, the Presidential Records Act would likely be violated, if Trump were to do what you suggest. But that's an entirely different conversation.

 

[iceberg]

then hillary built the server - she is responsible for what happens on it.

the problem these days is no one wants to be accountable for their actions because we're too busy judging the actions of others.

she built the damn thing. she owns whatever happens from it.

anything else is pure chicken shit.

Hillary's server is entirely irrelevant to any charges of mishandling classified material. I don't know why you guys can't get that through your heads.

why can't you get it through your head she did it to hide?

if trump were to make his own server to communicate with - would you give it the same "all clear, boss" or would you say trump is hiding something?

To hide what?

It was not against the law for Clinton to set up a private server for her email. Full stop.

so - if trump sets up his own server, you're cool with it? hides / deletes mail from it when asked for it. hires 3rd party companies to scrub the drives - all this would be cool with you if trump did it.

You're having an issue with how you're phrasing your question. I'm not talking about my feelings, I'm talking about the law.

As far as I understand it, the Presidential Records Act would likely be violated, if Trump were to do what you suggest. But that's an entirely different conversation.

not really.

the bottom line is when you don't care about 1 side acting up / suspicious you have a hard time getting an agreement when the other side is doing the same thing.

we've come to the point where we defend what we have for no other reason that we're being attacked by the other side for doing what we're all guilty of doing.

we're past legal. we're full on emo-bat-shit-crazy. we defend hillary to the wall for actions that are AT BEST highly suspicious and jump all over trump for a closed door meeting with russians.

when we treat like actions on like terms, we can end the bullshit. til then, here we are full of hate.

 

[easyt65]

You've got it flipped around.

It's not that she broke the law unintentionally - she didn't break the law, because it was unintentional.

So, she broke the law by killing the guy (committing espionage / obstruction) unintentionally, she is not guilty of killing the guy (committing Obstruction / espionage) because it was unintentional?!

WTF? That's not how it works, dude.

It is how it works.

Every law on the books has, as part of it's statutory language, two components. In the legal world, they're known as "actus reas" and "mens rea" - which translate approximately to "bad act" and "culpable mental state".

If you were to kill someone accidentally and through no fault of your own, you have not committed a crime.

DUDE, STOP!

'Ignorance' is no excuse / valid defense for breaking the law. Not MEANING to break the law' is NOT a legitimate defense for breaking the law.

You're one of those 'touchy, feely' / 'It depends on different variables' kind of guys, especially when trying to defend liberals who commit crimes, aren't you?!

Hillary ran an un-approved server, conducted govt business on it, hid more than 15,000 documents on it in violation of the FOIA and Federal Records Act, stored classified on it, allowed hackers to raid her unencrypted illegal server, gave access to classified files to people who did not have a clearance, defied a subpoena and obstructed justice by attempting to destroy evidence......and you are trying to say Hillary did not MEAN to do any of this?

SERIOUSLY - WHAT THE F*?

Oh wait, I have the answer to why so many people believe and parrot this shit - thanks to Liberal / surrogate liberal media that have brainwashed snowflakes:

Great news: Americans can no longer tell fact from opinion


If nothing else, in defense of their felon candidate who could not even win her own party's nomination, the Democratic party, liberals, and snowflakes have had to concede that Hillary was TOO STUPID to be President - completely ignorant ot US law, that she was breaking laws, & that she compromised national security.

Since they themselves have gone out of their way to prove Hillary is just this stupid instead of being a criminal, why are they still so pissed she lost the election?

THEY SHOULD BE RELIEVED!