Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Statutes are LAWS
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.
Look here's what Comey said.I see no difference either way if it's not a prosecutable action.
Look here's what Comey said.
"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information"
It doesn't matter if you don't see the difference a statute is a law and Comey said she potentially violated the statute (law)
More democrat lies and propaganda.Why the FBI Let Hillary Clinton Off the Hook
Law enforcement officials look for clear criminal intent in cases like this.time.com
For anyone wondering why Clinton wasn't prosecuted, read the above. Case closed.
I'm not reading your disinformation.Read the article I linked.
If you are referring to Bruce Reinhardt, your wonderful liberal media got the facts wrong once again.
Perhaps it is you that is the weak minded sheeple that always believes liberal propaganda. No matter how many times the liberal media lies to you you continue to believe everything it tells you.
Fact check: Bruce Reinhart, who approved FBI search of Mar-a-Lago, was not appointed by Trump
Bruce Reinhart, the magistrate judge who approved the FBI's search warrant, was appointed by district court judges, not by Trump, in 2018.www.usatoday.com
More democrat lies and propaganda.
Don't tell me the law was violated and do nothing. But now they're going after Trump for doing the same thing.
Oh so you got proof of his intent? Did he pack his property? Where is your noroof? And don't say the FBI they are liars.Trump deliberately set out to steal the most sensitive security documents and remove them from the White House. This shit didn't just magically appear in his inbox and he held onto it by mistake. The fact that he hid the stuff and refused to give it up just proves intent.
Clinton had nothing above "classified" on her server, and the handful of documents that were classified, we designated AFTER she had received them.
Trump had SDI Top Secret documents that are never supposed to be viewed outside of a secure room, locked in a basement at a public golf club which is a frequent target of international spies. There is nothing "accidental" in those boxes, there are sets of documents all stamped "TOP SECRET" across every single page.
Not to mention, Trump a long history of flashing national security documents around the dining room at Mar-a-lago, and giving sensitive information to the Russians in the Oval Office.
Last but not least, when a document is "declassified", that 'TOP SECRET' stamp is removed. Trump saying he "declassified" something when he took it, carried no legal weight whatsoever. He has to complete the paperwork before ANYTHING is declassified. This isn't a loosey goosey family firm.
No they had a private server with classified information in their house.You guys are so funny. Clinton’s never took classified information to their houses to.. do whatever Trump was doing… why did he have them?!?!
Deflection isn’t a good look.
Hillary has had a smell on her for a half century. That is a pattern.The GQP had four years to sic the DOJ on her. That's not her fault. Go after her next year when you have the House.
This is a different story entirely.
Deflection doesn't work.
"Did not disagree," is not the same as "agreed." But you know that, or you would have saved some typing and said "agreed."The Trump DOJ did not disagree with that assessment as they declined any prosecution of Clinton. She was entitled to that information as Secretary of State. There was no mountain of evidence. Enough of your propaganda.
That they accepted at their houses. citygator got that wrong, and I'm sure he's man enough to acknowledge that.No they had a private server with classified information in their house.
"Gross negligence" does not require intent. Comey said in his original version of the announcement that Clinton acted with gross negligence.Why the FBI Let Hillary Clinton Off the Hook
Law enforcement officials look for clear criminal intent in cases like this.
For anyone wondering why Clinton wasn't prosecuted, read the above. Case closed.
Everyone knows the story. She didn’t “take” a single document anywhere, especially her house. Hilary had zero documents.That they accepted at their houses. citygator got that wrong, and I'm sure he's man enough to acknowledge that.
She had hundreds of thousands of documents on the server at her house. Are you saying that you don't know that a document can be in electronic form?Everyone knows the story. She didn’t “take” a single document anywhere, especially her house. Hilary had zero documents.
She wasn’t the storage location of any documents. She took them no where. Any confidential file would have been intended to be stored at its origination not on some email server a copy was sent to. Nothing was found to be important. But sure .. go try and lock her up. She’s been waiting and laughing at you guys for years.She had hundreds of thousands of documents on the server at her house. Are you saying that you don't know that a document can be in electronic form?
Why do you think that what you write on Word has the file extension ".doc," even before you print it? Come on, man! You're kidding, right?
No one has ever been prosecuted for gross negligence. Prosecuting Clinton under that would be a double standard."Gross negligence" does not require intent. Comey said in his original version of the announcement that Clinton acted with gross negligence.
Case re-opened.
