Lock her up... lock her up
- Thread starter HerdBuckeye
- Start date
If she had sent classified information, lied by saying she had turned everything over despite deleting 33,000 emails, and then used bleachbit on her server and busted up her phones with hammers I would certainly agree with you.
So is the argument here that both Hillary Clinton and Ivanka Trump should go to prison for breaking the law or that neither Hillary Clinton nor Ivanka Trump did anything wrong and so it's not a big deal or that your team did it too so that makes it okay when my team does it?
For me personally, calling attention to the Ivanka email thing is more for the enjoyment of watching one side eagerly chastise her in retaliation for the Clinton condemnation and the other side grasp at straws to differentiate the two. Entertainment at its finest.
There's no reason government business shouldn't be done on government servers. Doesn't matter who it is. Comey's hypocrisy on this is also beyond ridiculous.
The problem with Clinton had little to do with the actual emails themselves than with the server that she was using to send them with, that was the actual security concern.
Ivanka's emails are being routed through her government account even if they are originating from a personal email, so it's not really an apple oranges comparison, except of course if you're a partisan.
Ivanka's emails are being routed through her government account even if they are originating from a personal email, so it's not really an apple oranges comparison, except of course if you're a partisan.
Maybe, but it was NOT against the law.
And of course you're not.
Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924
Possession or retention of information “relating to the national defense."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-37
HRC creating a private email as Sec of State to avoid FOIA requests is not the same at all. You would have to be an idiot to think it is.
But than again, IT had the benefit of the uproar over Hillary’s email scandal being fresh in the public conscious and her father was one of Hillary’s greatest public critics. You’d have to be an idiot to believe doing something that could remotely cause a backlash and give the appearance of hypocrisy in the wake of that wasn’t...well...stupid.
Source for that statement?........If you have one, you have something Comey didn't have. bravo
I’d like to point out that you went from replying with a question to replying with an imperative. I see this as real progress.
You can't remember if you had applesauce with your meds this morning, let alone if the links have been posted on here.
No links have been posted regarding a law that hillary broke. I know that because she's not been charged with a crime. I haven't taken enough meds to fill a small bottle in the last 30 years, other than antibiotics on rare occasions.
Yes it has you just ignore it or claim that since the fbi didn’t charge her she didn’t break any laws
Yes, I certainly am. Why? Because no classified information marked as such was sent or received.
"In November 2014 President Barack Obama signed the Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments, which require government officials to forward any official correspondence to the government within 20 days. Even under this new law, however, the penalties are only administrative, not criminal.
The State Department inspector general report, released in May 2016, found that Mrs Clinton's email system violated government policy and that she did not receive permission prior to instituting it - approval that would not have been granted had she asked. Such transgressions, however, do not constitute criminal conduct.
FBI director James Comey announced the results of a separate FBI investigation on 5 July and concluded that that while "there is evidence of potential violations" of criminal statues covering the mishandling of classified information, "our judgement is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case". It referred the matter to the Justice Department, which closed the case against Mrs Clinton and her aides with no charges.
The State Department has since resumed its investigation into whether Mrs Clinton or her aides violated government policy in their handling of classified information. If it determines that they did, the punishment could include a formal letter of reprimand or loss of security clearance.
Pfffffft. He doesn't take meds. I'm guessing that's part of the problem.
Comey? You mean the guy that wrote his conclusion before Hillary was even interviewed? You know, the conclusion that was rewritten by Strok to eliminate the "gross negligence" language?
That's his job. They'd already combed through thousands and thousands of emails and had been investigating for several months. He was reasonably certain how things were going to end unless something else came up. When nothing else came up to change things, all he had to do was release the decision of no charges.
That's why he is on the cans and gives me shit. Mild depression for me = $20 a month and I do well now. He's batshit crazy, spent tens of thousands of dollars on the cans, he's still crazy and miserable, but now he's lost his business and is on welfare.
So his job is to come to a conclusion before all the facts are in?
