• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Texts From FBI Agents Suggest AG Lynch Knew ‘No Charges Will Be Brought’ in Clinton Probe

Khayembii Communique said:
The FBI director never determined that she violated the law.
Click to expand...

He found her actions "Grossly negligent" which meets the standard.


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

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.
Click to expand...

.
 
Acadia said:
Hillary Clinton was trained (and signed off on) on how to determine, understand, handle and protect classification and sensitive information, as Kristian Saucier was trained that a submarine's engine department is a restricted area and contains sensitive, classified information which is to be protected. In fact, for the latter, no suggestion was ever made that Saucier planned to use the photographs he took inside the sub's engine room outside of the Navy.
Yet, off to the Federal pokey he went.
Click to expand...

Don't you think that the conspiracy theory about her and Bill murdering fifty of their associates was way cooler? Every conspiracy theory involving Clinton gets more and more boring. When Republicans grow frustrated with this chapter of their Hillary obsession they're going to find that the Clinton Foundation didn't have adequate ramp access to one of the entrances, and it'll start all over again.
 
Cardinal said:
Your question requires that I, like you, begin with the conclusion (Hillary is guilty) and work backwards. Sorry, that's not how it works and I'm not going to do that.
Click to expand...

No sir, it only requires what was determined by the body which investigated her... That would be the FBI.

.
 
Grim17 said:
No sir, it only requires what was determined by the body which investigated her... That would be the FBI.

.
Click to expand...

Oh, okay. In that case there's not enough evidence to result in an indictment. Glad we can agree.
 
Cardinal said:
Oh, okay. In that case there's not enough evidence to result in an indictment. Glad we can agree.
Click to expand...

So in your opinion, meeting the standards for violating federal law as was determined by James Comey deeming her actions "grossly negligent", isn't good enough for an indictment?

.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
But there was. She violated several handling of classified documents that those of us who served would have been court martialed for. You can see the fix was in for the elite ruling class scumbag you voted for being protected and not having to answer to the same laws you or I would. The clinton meeting on the jetway, man, you guys believe the dumbest **** about trump but make every excuse for this criminal witch. Why is that>?
Click to expand...
Im not sure how you feel about this but I am curious what you think.

While I think it's painfully obvious that she is guility, if no real harm occurred as a result of her crimes. Taking into consideration that she is a former first lady, would you of accepted her being impeached so that she could never be in politics again but stop short of actually putting her in jail.


Would you of been able to live with that conclusion or do you believe that for the sake of the integrity of justice and the principle of nobody is above the law that she should a former first lady, should be behind bars?

I personally struggle between the two ideas. What do we do with a former first lady as corrupt as she is?

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
MovingPictures said:
Good god, move on with your lives you ****ing babies; talk about not moving on from the election

You only care because it's Clinton, and you haven't given up on your wet dream of putting her jail for being a liberal.

Meanwhile, Trump has committed abuses far above the mishandling of emails, yet you all have no problem with any of it.

Spare us.
Click to expand...
Like what?
 
Grim17 said:
So in your opinion, meeting the standards for violating federal law as was determined by James Comey deeming her actions "grossly negligent", isn't good enough for an indictment?

.
Click to expand...

Do you think that putting your arguments in boldface makes them stronger? It makes them "louder," but it certainly doesn't make them smarter.
 
Last edited:
Grim17 said:
So in your opinion, meeting the standards for violating federal law as was determined by James Comey deeming her actions "grossly negligent", isn't good enough for an indictment?
Click to expand...

Bold text isn't going to change history. Hillary Clinton wasn't indicted. Deal with it.
 
Grim17 said:
He found her actions "Grossly negligent" which meets the standard.




.
Click to expand...

lol, thank you for doing what I said you would. Now I will do what I said I would:

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

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.
Click to expand...

"The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring "intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation." This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith. The sanctions apply only when scienter is established."

...

"At the conclusion of all the evidence, petitioners sought a directed verdict of acquittal because (1) the innocuous character of the evidence forbade a conclusion that petitioners had intent or reason to believe that the information was to be used to the injury of the United States or the advantage of a foreign nation..."

Gorin v. United States

This is a rare scenario in which case law is very explicit. Intent must be shown for a violation of the law to have occurred based on the fact that "information related to the national defense" is much too broad of a condition to be constitutionally sound.

In the Clinton case, scienter cannot be established, ergo Clinton was not in violation of the law, regardless of how gross her negligence was.
 
iliveonramen said:
Which is for normal people considered a pretty legitimate body to make that determination.
Click to expand...

Normally, I'd agree... but when you have the head of the FBI determining that her actions met the standards for being illegal, and that language gets changed by another agent with a clear political bias favoring Clinton, so that it no longer meets that standard, that challenges the legitimacy of that investigation. Wouldn't you agree?

.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
lol, thank you for doing what I said you would. Now I will do what I said I would:



"The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring "intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation." This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith. The sanctions apply only when scienter is established."

...

"At the conclusion of all the evidence, petitioners sought a directed verdict of acquittal because (1) the innocuous character of the evidence forbade a conclusion that petitioners had intent or reason to believe that the information was to be used to the injury of the United States or the advantage of a foreign nation..."

Gorin v. United States

This is a rare scenario in which case law is very explicit. Intent must be shown for a violation of the law to have occurred based on the fact that "information related to the national defense" is much too broad of a condition to be constitutionally sound.

In the Clinton case, scienter cannot be established, ergo Clinton was not in violation of the law, regardless of how gross her negligence was.
Click to expand...

That can't be true...Judge Napolitano, Judge Jeanine, and a few former prosecutors on Fox News said Hillary was clearly violating that law.
 
Grim17 said:
Normally, I'd agree... but when you have the head of the FBI determining that her actions met the standards for being illegal, and that language gets changed by another agent with a clear political bias favoring Clinton, so that it no longer meets that standard, that challenges the legitimacy of that investigation. Wouldn't you agree?

.
Click to expand...

Comey said her actions met the standards of gross negligence, not violating the law. This is what you can't seem to understand; one does not necessarily follow from the other.
 
Cardinal said:
Do you think that putting your arguments in boldface makes them stronger? It makes them "louder," but it certainly doesn't make them smarter.
Click to expand...

Not at all... I was just hoping it would get your attention so you would finally answer the damned question.

I have never understood how a person can stand up for their beliefs, but refuse to answer a question about those beliefs... To me, that signals a clear flaw in those beliefs, otherwise they would answer.

.
 
Grim17 said:
Normally, I'd agree... but when you have the head of the FBI determining that her actions met the standards for being illegal, and that language gets changed by another agent with a clear political bias favoring Clinton, so that it no longer meets that standard, that challenges the legitimacy of that investigation. Wouldn't you agree?

.
Click to expand...

Maybe the language was changed because it hinted at illegality but that wasn't accurate? In what reality is the head of the FBI being dictated to by someone lower on the totem poll about a high profile case like this? You have to make a few pretty big assumptions in order to come to the conclusion that the FBI acted in bad faith.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Gross negligence isn't what determines guilt. Intent is. I'm sorry you don't understand that. I'm glad Comey did. Call her grossly negligent if you want. Nobody cares.
Click to expand...
How isn't setting up a private server and changing classification headers not evidence of intent?

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
Khayembii Communique said:
The FBI director never determined that she violated the law.
Click to expand...
Comey really isn't the problem here. I mean he is to some extent because he provided political cover for who was the problem. Lynch isn't obligated to follow his recommendation. He offered his opinion but ultimately lynch decides who to prosecute. She is the one that has a lit of explaining to do.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Comey said her actions met the standards of gross negligence, not violating the law. This is what you can't seem to understand; one does not necessarily follow from the other.
Click to expand...

That's not how I read the statute:

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...
Click to expand...

Comey said her actions were "Grossly negligent" in the handling of classified documents. She met the standard on nearly everything written in that law above.

.
 
Cardinal said:
Wow. I see you managed to cram the tarmac meeting and Trump into your post. You want to work Pizzagate and Benghazi in there while you're at it?
Click to expand...



What a dumb post. I think must hold a record or something by now. my point stands, you partisan hacks will believe any dumb **** the media sells you about trump, but when you see fbi evidence showing exact crimes your queen committed, you pretend there's not enough evidence.


Hillary violated the several actual laws including:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/46/503.59
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924

and also conspired to have an aid ilegally strip the classification headers from a classified email and send it nonsecure.


These are actual facts and the actual laws she broke. This is what's called evidence. Now it's coming to light the fix may have been in and once again you will have to eat crow over your true believer partisanism and cognitive dissonance... I'm embarrassed for you.
 
Cardinal said:
Don't you think that the conspiracy theory about her and Bill murdering fifty of their associates was way cooler? Every conspiracy theory involving Clinton gets more and more boring. When Republicans grow frustrated with this chapter of their Hillary obsession they're going to find that the Clinton Foundation didn't have adequate ramp access to one of the entrances, and it'll start all over again.
Click to expand...




Why are you injecting stupid conspiracy theories into the thread? you can't handle the truth about your queen in exile?
 
trouble13 said:
Im not sure how you feel about this but I am curious what you think.

While I think it's painfully obvious that she is guility, if no real harm occurred as a result of her crimes. Taking into consideration that she is a former first lady, would you of accepted her being impeached so that she could never be in politics again but stop short of actually putting her in jail.


Would you of been able to live with that conclusion or do you believe that for the sake of the integrity of justice and the principle of nobody is above the law that she should a former first lady, should be behind bars?

I personally struggle between the two ideas. What do we do with a former first lady as corrupt as she is?

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...




I'd like to see her treated the same way I would have if I illegally kept, stored, and transfered classified information. nothing more, nothing less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom