unreal that the FBI just ignores the actual wording of the law. Intent is not written into the law.

Spock;1802429 wrote:unreal that the FBI just ignores the actual wording of the law. Intent is not written into the law.

It's worse than that. Comey admitted that she broke the law and that other people would get in trouble for it. Quote "To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But this is now what we are deciding now".

I hope everyone remembers her blatantly lying about never sending classified emails as well. But let's continue thinking this was a witch hunt.

Clearly guilty of the statute. But once again, a crooked politician is above the law.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook

Spock;1802429 wrote:unreal that the FBI just ignores the actual wording of the law. Intent is not written into the law.

18 USC 793(f) requires the specific intent of gross negligence which the GOP director of the FBI said Hillary's carelessness did not arise to nor did the carlessness in sin similar cases and so no,charges were warranted. That is what is meant by criminal intent for that statute.

Surprised you aren't more used to all,of your predictions being wrong by now.

QuakerOats;1802436 wrote:Clearly guilty of the statute. But once again, a crooked politician is above the law.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook

Very funny. The author misunderstands why the specific intent element of the crime was not satisified just like CCRunner.

BoatShoes;1802443 wrote:18 USC 793(f) requires the specific intent of gross negligence which the GOP director of the FBI said Hillary's carelessness did not arise to nor did the carlessness in sin similar cases and so no,charges were warranted. That is what is meant by criminal intent for that statute.

Surprised you aren't more used to all,of your predictions being wrong by now.

two statutes -- -intent is not part of the statute; you know that; I know that, and just about everyone else knows that.

Negligence is the threshold; she is guilty of negligence; the director said so, but then said some prosecutors would not run with it, in his opinion.

Nice try at deception, again.

Yeah, "extreme carelessness"...that even a reasonable person would agree.... is pretty much the textbook definition of gross negligence. I'm sure his choice of words there was not an accident.

We live in a banana Republic.

At the end of the day.........This will sink her during the debates

Spock;1802486 wrote:At the end of the day.........This will sink her during the debates

No, it won't.

Spock;1802486 wrote:At the end of the day.........This will sink her during the debates

Nah. People will still vote for her because:
A.) They still have the misguided idea that the democrats are trying to help the poor and the weak
5.) Party loyalty, no matter what/who

Let me ask our resident true-blue democrats (PTown, Isadore, BS), after the latest news, some pertinent questions:

1.) Do you still have confidence in Hillary Clinton's capabilities? If so, which capabilities are her selling point to you?

2.) Do you think she'll be able to competently handle terrorist attacks?
- she really can't blame a youtube video again

3.) Do you think she'll help blue collar workers in any way? How?

4.) How much of HER are you behind, or is it simply party politics?

5.) How much of her record matters to you? Does any of it, good or bad, change the game for you?

CenterBHSFan;1802498 wrote:Let me ask our resident true-blue democrats (PTown, Isadore, BS), after the latest news, some pertinent questions:

1.) Do you still have confidence in Hillary Clinton's capabilities? If so, which capabilities are her selling point to you?

2.) Do you think she'll be able to competently handle terrorist attacks?
- she really can't blame a youtube video again

3.) Do you think she'll help blue collar workers in any way? How?

4.) How much of HER are you behind, or is it simply party politics?

5.) How much of her record matters to you? Does any of it, good or bad, change the game for you?

Can't wait to read ptown saying "She's not Trump." In 5 different ways

CenterBHSFan;1802498 wrote:Let me ask our resident true-blue democrats (PTown, Isadore, BS), after the latest news, some pertinent questions:

1.) Do you still have confidence in Hillary Clinton's capabilities? If so, which capabilities are her selling point to you?

2.) Do you think she'll be able to competently handle terrorist attacks?
- she really can't blame a youtube video again

3.) Do you think she'll help blue collar workers in any way? How?

4.) How much of HER are you behind, or is it simply party politics?

5.) How much of her record matters to you? Does any of it, good or bad, change the game for you?

I can already give you each response.

Ptown:

1. I have more confidence than Trump.

2. Yes I do, because (insert biased source) says so and (insert biased source) says she will not be a disaster like trump.

3. Maybe, maybe not, but better chance than Trump obviously. I really can't believe you guys would vote against her.

4. She is better than Trump. I am just so much smarter than everyone else here so I realize the peasants on this forum will no matter what never support Hillary. I understand the issues much better than everyone else.

5. Obviously not. You all are not smart enough to comprehend Hillary's complex agenda, which is clearly better than Trump.

Boatshoes:

(Insert 5 paragraphs of fluff with a bar graph, that basically equates to BS turning another blind eye to Hillary's actions despite the fact he allegedly worked in the naval reserves under a sensitive information environment)

Isadore:

Gosh a ruddies I can't wait for our first FEMALE president.

SportsAndLady;1802488 wrote:No, it won't.

yes it will. independants wont be voting for her.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437345/hillary-clinton-lies-make-her-unpopular


......good to go back in time to be reminded of just a few of her more glaring criminalities, lies.

QuakerOats;1802511 wrote:http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437345/hillary-clinton-lies-make-her-unpopular


......good to go back in time to be reminded of just a few of her more glaring criminalities, lies.

you think that stuff is bad.....wait till Bill gets back in there. They will destroy lives and possibly the country.

superman;1802500 wrote:Can't wait to read ptown saying "She's not Trump." In 5 different ways

That is it.
Tell me what makes Trump so much better?

The guy is a basket case that has no conceptual idea of anything regarding the economy or foreign policy.
If the R's had their shit together and would have put up Rubio, Jeb, Christie, or any other actual formidable candidate, this race would be over. Clinton has so many negatives, yet it is a wash because Trump is such an idiot and buffoon.

Why do I support Hilliary? Because at the end of the day, I know she is the traditional candidate that believes in the liberal international order that the US established and has led since 1945. Trump does not believe in any of that and would eliminate everything we have built since 1945.
Explain to me why a world where Donald wants to raise tariffs, eliminate NATO, screw over allies, and have no rational foreign policy or use of force is better?

Would I support a Rubio or Jeb if they ran, yeah perhaps actually. But, the R's screwed themselves and as a result, Clinton is the best default option.

^^^^Are you kidding me?

Trump doesnt have an idea on the economy? He deals with the world as a business man not a politician. THats a better angle then Hilary the politician.

You want a politician in there and you cant see how a regular person might be a better candidate for the job

Spock;1802523 wrote:^^^^Are you kidding me?

Trump doesnt have an idea on the economy? He deals with the world as a business man not a politician. THats a better angle then Hilary the politician.

You want a politician in there and you cant see how a regular person might be a better candidate for the job

If you are fine with 20-35% tariffs as a result of a trade war, then go ahead and vote Trump.
He wants to pull out of our existing trade deals. What do you think will happen in the meantime?
Goods and imported will go to WTO rates, meaning items from China, Canada, and Mexico will rise.

If he says he will keep existing deals, but once he gets into office, he will seek to change them, then ok, maybe that will work. But, no, the idiot says he wants a whole new deal. So, items and prices will rise as a result.

If you are good with that, vote Trump.

So just as I predicted, ptown can't answer the questions without mentioning Trump. Too predictable.

ptown_trojans_1;1802524 wrote:If you are fine with 20-35% tariffs as a result of a trade war, then go ahead and vote Trump.
He wants to pull out of our existing trade deals. What do you think will happen in the meantime?
Goods and imported will go to WTO rates, meaning items from China, Canada, and Mexico will rise.

If he says he will keep existing deals, but once he gets into office, he will seek to change them, then ok, maybe that will work. But, no, the idiot says he wants a whole new deal. So, items and prices will rise as a result.

If you are good with that, vote Trump.

We ARE, and HAVE BEEN, in a trade war ..........and we ARE getting our ASS KICKED.

What planet are you residing on?

We can do sooooooooooooooo much better it is not even funny.

Fair trade / repatriate $2 trillion / shut down the regulators >> economy will finally grow.

like_that;1802525 wrote:So just as I predicted, ptown can't answer the questions without mentioning Trump. Too predictable.

You are damn right. Donald is that bad.

QuakerOats;1802526 wrote:We ARE, and HAVE BEEN, in a trade war ..........and we ARE getting our ASS KICKED.

What planet are you residing on?

We can do sooooooooooooooo much better it is not even funny.

Fair trade / repatriate $2 trillion / shut down the regulators >> economy will finally grow.

Fine, if you want to live in a world where existing goods rise as he renegotiates these deals, then good luck to ya.
Just remember that next time you go to Target or Wal Mart all those items will increase in price as soon as we pull out of those deals.

ptown_trojans_1;1802527 wrote:You are damn right. Donald is that bad.


.

So you avoid answering the actual questions, because you know the unfavorable truth. Thanks for confirming.

Just a step below mentioning Bush when deflecting questions.

How is PTown not answering the question? You kind of trapped him into a no win situation where you were going to jump on him the moment he mentioned Trump but he's admitting Trump is the only reason he supports Hillary. So if Trump is the reason to vote Hillary you kind of have to mention his name in your response.

And I get it, I'm kind of there with him. I HATE the idea of Hillary as President and last summer was in a "I'll vote for anyone over her" frame of mind. But then the GOP had to call my bluff by nominating a reality show entertainer as the nominee.