CDZ White House petitioned to open charges against Hillary Clinton

[I amso IR]

The Independent Journal has an article which indicates over 237,000 people, more than twice the number required, have asked to reopen charges against Hillary Clinton for illegal use of her private server to communicate classified material. The people want the charges, dismissed by the FBI, to be pressed against her.

http://links.injo.com/u/fc6853479f984d99a818e412054a8622?

If the above link fails, please go the "Independent Journal" and search.

What do you think? Should Hillary be charged and tried in a court of law?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

of course she should be, and no she won't be. The facts are the facts. She got away with a crime, just go vote against her. I promise denying her the first female president would be far more devastating to the old hag than a criminal conviction would be.

 

[320 Years of History]

Folks can petition to their hearts' content, but unless and until they can accompany their petition with clear evidence Mrs. Clinton had the mens rea required to prove criminal culpability, there's no impact that will come of their pleas, other than their having gone on record as thinking, in contravention of legal precedent, that they disagree with the prevailing thinking in the carrying out of our jurisprudential mores. That's what the 1st Amendment permits them to do, so by all means, submit petitions.

 

[I amso IR]

of course she should be, and no she won't be. The facts are the facts. She got away with a crime, just go vote against her. I promise denying her the first female president would be far more devastating to the old hag than a criminal conviction would be.

You are on to something there, alright.

 

[I amso IR]

Folks can petition to their hearts' content, but unless and until they can accompany their petition with clear evidence Mrs. Clinton had the mens rea required to prove criminal culpability, there's no impact that will come of their pleas, other than their having gone on record as thinking, in contravention of legal precedent, that they disagree with the prevailing thinking in the carrying out of our jurisprudential mores. That's what the 1st Amendment permits them to do, so by all means, submit petitions.

I am simply the messenger 320. Been a while since we have spoken. Hope all is fine on your end, we are getting by here. Oh, and by the way, the FCC is putting some heat, not much but some, on the telecommunications industry to do more to stifle phone issue. Cheers, daffy.

 

[rdean]

Meanwhile, Trump's court dates already set.

See ya in court. Right after the election.

 

[kaz]

The Independent Journal has an article which indicates over 237,000 people, more than twice the number required, have asked to reopen charges against Hillary Clinton for illegal use of her private server to communicate classified material. The people want the charges, dismissed by the FBI, to be pressed against her.

http://links.injo.com/u/fc6853479f984d99a818e412054a8622?

If the above link fails, please go the "Independent Journal" and search.

What do you think? Should Hillary be charged and tried in a court of law?

yes. She did more than Petraeus in every way

 

[320 Years of History]

Folks can petition to their hearts' content, but unless and until they can accompany their petition with clear evidence Mrs. Clinton had the mens rea required to prove criminal culpability, there's no impact that will come of their pleas, other than their having gone on record as thinking, in contravention of legal precedent, that they disagree with the prevailing thinking in the carrying out of our jurisprudential mores. That's what the 1st Amendment permits them to do, so by all means, submit petitions.

I am simply the messenger 320. Been a while since we have spoken. Hope all is fine on your end, we are getting by here. Oh, and by the way, the FCC is putting some heat, not much but some, on the telecommunications industry to do more to stifle phone issue. Cheers, daffy.

Getting on well here too. Glad it's the same with you.

Cheers.

 

[320 Years of History]

What do you think? Should Hillary be charged and tried in a court of law?

No.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

It won't matter because the American people won't force their hand.

 

[GaryDog]

The Independent Journal has an article which indicates over 237,000 people, more than twice the number required, have asked to reopen charges against Hillary Clinton for illegal use of her private server to communicate classified material. The people want the charges, dismissed by the FBI, to be pressed against her.

http://links.injo.com/u/fc6853479f984d99a818e412054a8622?

If the above link fails, please go the "Independent Journal" and search.

What do you think? Should Hillary be charged and tried in a court of law?

No.

Prosecutors (registered republicans) have already said as much. Why is this still a talking point? The Republicans have been exposed as political hacks on this issue time and time again. They'd be better served to try another Benghazi hearing.

 

[GaryDog]

Meanwhile, some 30,000+ want to rename fire ants "spicy boys".

So....that's what petitions are worth.

 

[I amso IR]

What do you think? Should Hillary be charged and tried in a court of law?

No.

I agree with you 320, let the American people answer that in the up coming election. A trial would be nothing more than a "witch hunt" to which we already have the answer. Let the votes show where the Americans stand with relation to Hillary Clinton. I do not think it will be a "cake walk" for either contestant.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Folks can petition to their hearts' content, but unless and until they can accompany their petition with clear evidence Mrs. Clinton had the mens rea required to prove criminal culpability, there's no impact that will come of their pleas, other than their having gone on record as thinking, in contravention of legal precedent, that they disagree with the prevailing thinking in the carrying out of our jurisprudential mores. That's what the 1st Amendment permits them to do, so by all means, submit petitions.

Will you shut up with that bullshit. It's clear you're trying to sound intelligent using the term, but the fact is you come across as stupid. There is NO requirement to prove intent to mishandle fucking classified material. This has been PROVEN to you.

 

[GaryDog]

Folks can petition to their hearts' content, but unless and until they can accompany their petition with clear evidence Mrs. Clinton had the mens rea required to prove criminal culpability, there's no impact that will come of their pleas, other than their having gone on record as thinking, in contravention of legal precedent, that they disagree with the prevailing thinking in the carrying out of our jurisprudential mores. That's what the 1st Amendment permits them to do, so by all means, submit petitions.

Will you shut up with that bullshit. It's clear you're trying to sound intelligent using the term, but the fact is you come across as stupid. There is NO requirement to prove intent to mishandle fucking classified material. This has been PROVEN to you.

Do you not understand what mens rea is? Tell me, does the criminal statute relating to mishandling of classified material require a mental state?

 

[320 Years of History]

Folks can petition to their hearts' content, but unless and until they can accompany their petition with clear evidence Mrs. Clinton had the mens rea required to prove criminal culpability, there's no impact that will come of their pleas, other than their having gone on record as thinking, in contravention of legal precedent, that they disagree with the prevailing thinking in the carrying out of our jurisprudential mores. That's what the 1st Amendment permits them to do, so by all means, submit petitions.

Will you shut up with that bullshit. It's clear you're trying to sound intelligent using the term, but the fact is you come across as stupid. There is NO requirement to prove intent to mishandle fucking classified material. This has been PROVEN to you.

Do you not understand what mens rea is? Tell me, does the criminal statute relating to mishandling of classified material require a mental state?

I can assure you he does not understand what mens rea is or what its role is in determining criminal culpability. You can look at his remarks in two threads and see he does not and nothing one does to try to share that concept with him will alter his state of ignorance about mens rea. He has no desire to understand it.

 

[320 Years of History]

Folks can petition to their hearts' content, but unless and until they can accompany their petition with clear evidence Mrs. Clinton had the mens rea required to prove criminal culpability, there's no impact that will come of their pleas, other than their having gone on record as thinking, in contravention of legal precedent, that they disagree with the prevailing thinking in the carrying out of our jurisprudential mores. That's what the 1st Amendment permits them to do, so by all means, submit petitions.

Will you shut up with that bullshit. It's clear you're trying to sound intelligent using the term, but the fact is you come across as stupid. There is NO requirement to prove intent to mishandle fucking classified material. This has been PROVEN to you.

No, it has not been proven at all. All that's happened is you've convinced yourself that mens rea should not be an element in assessing criminal culpability, most especially in assessing Mrs. Clinton's in connection with "Email-gate."

 

[GaryDog]

Folks can petition to their hearts' content, but unless and until they can accompany their petition with clear evidence Mrs. Clinton had the mens rea required to prove criminal culpability, there's no impact that will come of their pleas, other than their having gone on record as thinking, in contravention of legal precedent, that they disagree with the prevailing thinking in the carrying out of our jurisprudential mores. That's what the 1st Amendment permits them to do, so by all means, submit petitions.

Will you shut up with that bullshit. It's clear you're trying to sound intelligent using the term, but the fact is you come across as stupid. There is NO requirement to prove intent to mishandle fucking classified material. This has been PROVEN to you.

Do you not understand what mens rea is? Tell me, does the criminal statute relating to mishandling of classified material require a mental state?

I can assure you he does not understand what mens rea is or what its role is in determining criminal culpability. You can look at his remarks in two threads and see he does not and nothing one does to try to share that concept with him will alter his state of ignorance about mens rea. He has no desire to understand it.

I've noticed a theme of him not understanding. Perhaps the fact that he's adopted the Fox News catch phrase as a board handle -- and the fact that Fox News viewers are the least-informed of all viewers -- isn't a coincidence.

 

[I amso IR]

Folks can petition to their hearts' content, but unless and until they can accompany their petition with clear evidence Mrs. Clinton had the mens rea required to prove criminal culpability, there's no impact that will come of their pleas, other than their having gone on record as thinking, in contravention of legal precedent, that they disagree with the prevailing thinking in the carrying out of our jurisprudential mores. That's what the 1st Amendment permits them to do, so by all means, submit petitions.

Will you shut up with that bullshit. It's clear you're trying to sound intelligent using the term, but the fact is you come across as stupid. There is NO requirement to prove intent to mishandle fucking classified material. This has been PROVEN to you.

Do you not understand what mens rea is? Tell me, does the criminal statute relating to mishandling of classified material require a mental state?

I can assure you he does not understand what mens rea is or what its role is in determining criminal culpability. You can look at his remarks in two threads and see he does not and nothing one does to try to share that concept with him will alter his state of ignorance about mens rea. He has no desire to understand it.

I've noticed a theme of him not understanding. Perhaps the fact that he's adopted the Fox News catch phrase as a board handle -- and the fact that Fox News viewers are the least-informed of all viewers -- isn't a coincidence.

360/GD, I have always said "no news is good news". The last sentence of the university report you highlighted in red and I copied below is the proof of my pudding. Good work GD, even if you are a Democrat. And I now know what "mens rea" means. Good work to you 360 and I am not certain what faith you subscribe to. As I have stated above, let her be tried by the court of public opinion as suggested by "Fair Balance in post #2. If her bubble is to be burst then that is where the bursting should take place.

“This is solid evidence that if you’re not in that audience, you’re not going to get anything out of watching them.”

 

[320 Years of History]

Good work to you 360 and I am not certain what faith you subscribe to.

Thank you.

I am independent/Independent, both religiously and politically. I "subscribe" to Christianity, but I do not consider myself as belonging officially to any organized church.

As a child, I was exposed to Episcopal and Roman Catholic dogma. As an adult, I have nothing to do with either of those churches in a dogmatic sense. I volunteer my services at a Baptist church and a Roman Catholic church. I am involved with those two churches only because friends of mine are and they asked for my help. I do not attend any worship oriented events or services.