The Hillary Clinton Email Scandal

[P@triot]

We see liberals all over America doing what they always do - desperately attempting to defend the indefensible rather than just showing integrity and denouncing illegal or unethical behavior. But every single person in America knows exactly why Hillary hired someone to set up a private e-mail server for her. And it sure as hell wasn't for "convenience". And it sure as hell wasn't because of the outdated technology of the State Department. It was to avoid public oversight. Hillary and Obama wanted to be able to engage in illegal behavior without having a record of what they were doing. This isn't a liberal in America that doesn't know that this is the reality. But they have to play all kinds of games because they want a Democrat sitting in the White House starting in 2017. But here is even more evidence that Obama and Hillary were knowingly engaged in illegal behavior:

“President Barack Obama never put forward an IG (Inspector General) for the State Department. It was the longest period the State Department has ever gone — over five years — without an inspector general, directly coincided with Hillary Clinton’s time as Secretary of State,” Buck said.

“And it was the only presidentially appointed IG that the president never even put forward a nominee for. Why is that? You can’t put this one on Congress. Nice try,” Buck said. “This one is on the Obama administration.”

Let met guess USBM liberals - just a big "coincidence", uh? The longest period the State Department has ever gone without an Inspector General and the only IG that Obama didn't put forward a nominee for just happens to coincide with Hillary's time as Secretary of State during which she was circumventing oversight laws by using a private e-mail server. It's absurdly silly to attempt to deny any of this. It is painfully obvious what occurred here.

Obama Failed to Nominate Inspector General for Clinton’s State Department

Gen. Michael T. Flynn, Mr. Trump’s pick for national security adviser, has his own checkered past about rules. He installed a secret internet connection in his Pentagon office despite rules to the contrary. Sound familiar?

Was he properly disciplined for that?

Yes, he was given top secret clearance. Same with Betrayus.

Sarcasm not necessary. Was he properly disciplined for that incident? Yes or No?

 

[Timmy]

We see liberals all over America doing what they always do - desperately attempting to defend the indefensible rather than just showing integrity and denouncing illegal or unethical behavior. But every single person in America knows exactly why Hillary hired someone to set up a private e-mail server for her. And it sure as hell wasn't for "convenience". And it sure as hell wasn't because of the outdated technology of the State Department. It was to avoid public oversight. Hillary and Obama wanted to be able to engage in illegal behavior without having a record of what they were doing. This isn't a liberal in America that doesn't know that this is the reality. But they have to play all kinds of games because they want a Democrat sitting in the White House starting in 2017. But here is even more evidence that Obama and Hillary were knowingly engaged in illegal behavior:

“President Barack Obama never put forward an IG (Inspector General) for the State Department. It was the longest period the State Department has ever gone — over five years — without an inspector general, directly coincided with Hillary Clinton’s time as Secretary of State,” Buck said.

“And it was the only presidentially appointed IG that the president never even put forward a nominee for. Why is that? You can’t put this one on Congress. Nice try,” Buck said. “This one is on the Obama administration.”

Let met guess USBM liberals - just a big "coincidence", uh? The longest period the State Department has ever gone without an Inspector General and the only IG that Obama didn't put forward a nominee for just happens to coincide with Hillary's time as Secretary of State during which she was circumventing oversight laws by using a private e-mail server. It's absurdly silly to attempt to deny any of this. It is painfully obvious what occurred here.

Obama Failed to Nominate Inspector General for Clinton’s State Department

I am sure once trump is president , Hillary will be in trouble.

If you believe that, I have a bridge in New York and some land in Florida I would like to sell you. You're viewing all of this like a 10 year old child (or like a liberal). Donald and Hillary are old pals. Hell, the guy donated massive amounts of money to her campaign. I can guarantee you that Hillary won't see the slightest bit of legal trouble from this issue should Trump become president. In fact, it's exponentially more likely that she'll become a part of his staff in some capacity than it is that she'll ever encounter legal ramifications from it at the hand of Trump.

View attachment 77108

The OPs assessment was 100% accurate which you did not dispute. Like all faithful Liberals, you ridicule then quickly change the subject away.
Try being honest. She is guilty as hell, and you and all of your Liberal friends know it. Any 10 year old child would know it.

No she's not . Righties spun the story like we was a spy collecting secrets to sell to the Russians .

It was nothing like that. There was no intent on her part to do anything illegal .

The whole thing was a witch hunt .

 

[P@triot]

[No she's not . Righties spun the story like we was a spy collecting secrets to sell to the Russians . It was nothing like that. There was no intent on her part to do anything illegal . The whole thing was a witch hunt .

It doesn't matter, Sally....Not meaning to break the law does not absolve you from the penalty of breaking the law. If you kill a person because you missed a stop sign, you most definitely did not have "intent" to break the law. But you will be charged with vehicular manslaughter.

I'm so tired of you ignorant progressives making up ridiculous excuses. Intent has nothing to do with it. Grow up already. Admit that she was a dirt-bag who compromised national security because she wanted to avoid Congressional oversight since she was engaged in a host of illegal activities.

 

[Timmy]

[No she's not . Righties spun the story like we was a spy collecting secrets to sell to the Russians . It was nothing like that. There was no intent on her part to do anything illegal . The whole thing was a witch hunt .

It doesn't matter, Sally....Not meaning to break the law does not absolve you from the penalty of breaking the law. If you kill a person because you missed a stop sign, you most definitely did not have "intent" to break the law. But you will be charged with vehicular manslaughter.

I'm so tired of you ignorant progressives making up ridiculous excuses. Intent has nothing to do with it. Grow up already. Admit that she was a dirt-bag who compromised national security because she wanted to avoid Congressional oversight since she was engaged in a host of illegal activities.

Actually INTENT does matter . Especially when the law she was being accused of breaking starts off with "whoever intentionally...."

 

[P@triot]

[No she's not . Righties spun the story like we was a spy collecting secrets to sell to the Russians . It was nothing like that. There was no intent on her part to do anything illegal . The whole thing was a witch hunt .

It doesn't matter, Sally....Not meaning to break the law does not absolve you from the penalty of breaking the law. If you kill a person because you missed a stop sign, you most definitely did not have "intent" to break the law. But you will be charged with vehicular manslaughter.

I'm so tired of you ignorant progressives making up ridiculous excuses. Intent has nothing to do with it. Grow up already. Admit that she was a dirt-bag who compromised national security because she wanted to avoid Congressional oversight since she was engaged in a host of illegal activities.

Actually INTENT does matter . Especially when the law she was being accused of breaking starts off with "whoever intentionally...."

No....really, nitwit....intent does not matter. It is not part of the requirement of the statute. You don't get to just make shit up and alter the law simply because you're too immature to acknowledge that someone you supported violated the law.

In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.

FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook

 

[Timmy]

[No she's not . Righties spun the story like we was a spy collecting secrets to sell to the Russians . It was nothing like that. There was no intent on her part to do anything illegal . The whole thing was a witch hunt .

It doesn't matter, Sally....Not meaning to break the law does not absolve you from the penalty of breaking the law. If you kill a person because you missed a stop sign, you most definitely did not have "intent" to break the law. But you will be charged with vehicular manslaughter.

I'm so tired of you ignorant progressives making up ridiculous excuses. Intent has nothing to do with it. Grow up already. Admit that she was a dirt-bag who compromised national security because she wanted to avoid Congressional oversight since she was engaged in a host of illegal activities.

Actually INTENT does matter . Especially when the law she was being accused of breaking starts off with "whoever intentionally...."

No....really, nitwit....intent does not matter. It is not part of the requirement of the statute. You don't get to just make shit up and alter the law simply because you're too immature to acknowledge that someone you supported violated the law.

In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.

FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook

Instead of link to fake news hack piece, how about a link to the actual law !

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information


(a)
Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to t

 

[P@triot]

[No she's not . Righties spun the story like we was a spy collecting secrets to sell to the Russians . It was nothing like that. There was no intent on her part to do anything illegal . The whole thing was a witch hunt .

It doesn't matter, Sally....Not meaning to break the law does not absolve you from the penalty of breaking the law. If you kill a person because you missed a stop sign, you most definitely did not have "intent" to break the law. But you will be charged with vehicular manslaughter.

I'm so tired of you ignorant progressives making up ridiculous excuses. Intent has nothing to do with it. Grow up already. Admit that she was a dirt-bag who compromised national security because she wanted to avoid Congressional oversight since she was engaged in a host of illegal activities.

Actually INTENT does matter . Especially when the law she was being accused of breaking starts off with "whoever intentionally...."

No....really, nitwit....intent does not matter. It is not part of the requirement of the statute. You don't get to just make shit up and alter the law simply because you're too immature to acknowledge that someone you supported violated the law.

In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.

FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook

Instead of link to fake news hack piece, how about a link to the actual law !

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information


(a)
Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to t

The "actual" law?!? That's not Congress's website genius - that's Cornell University.

 

[P@triot]

[No she's not . Righties spun the story like we was a spy collecting secrets to sell to the Russians . It was nothing like that. There was no intent on her part to do anything illegal . The whole thing was a witch hunt .

It doesn't matter, Sally....Not meaning to break the law does not absolve you from the penalty of breaking the law. If you kill a person because you missed a stop sign, you most definitely did not have "intent" to break the law. But you will be charged with vehicular manslaughter.

I'm so tired of you ignorant progressives making up ridiculous excuses. Intent has nothing to do with it. Grow up already. Admit that she was a dirt-bag who compromised national security because she wanted to avoid Congressional oversight since she was engaged in a host of illegal activities.

Actually INTENT does matter . Especially when the law she was being accused of breaking starts off with "whoever intentionally...."

No....really, nitwit....intent does not matter. It is not part of the requirement of the statute. You don't get to just make shit up and alter the law simply because you're too immature to acknowledge that someone you supported violated the law.

In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.

FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook

Instead of link to fake news hack piece, how about a link to the actual law !

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information


(a)
Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to t

You know what is hilarious? The author in my link specifically cites section (f) of the statute. Because you don't know how to read, you cite section (a).

The statute encompasses all sections genius. Violation of any one section is a violation of the law.

Here you go chief - section (f) directly from your own link...

(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.

Thanks for playing Timmy! But sadly you lose again...