Scant Evidence That Clinton Had Malicious Intent

I she gets away with it I would expect everyone to use their own private servers. I mean why expose yourself to FOIA requests?

 

If all that was done it would be cut and dry and no long investigation would be conducted. Yes, no?

This is now well over a year, your legal knowledge is (*)(*)(*)(*). That is fact

 

It's not whether you intended to break the law or not, but whether or not you did.
View attachment 43470

 

Your flatulence refutes nothing. My points stand.

So why would you elect someone to the high position of the public trust, the highest national security position who so willfully and with purpose violated those rules/laws and acted with such contempt for them?

 

Exactly, why wouldn't they especially knowing that the Democrats and citizens such as Arxael and akphidelt2007's would be here defending them tooth and nail.

 

Your armchair lawyering is recognized as useless and nothing but your baseless opinion. You have not refuted anything I've said.

I don't which is why I'm not voting for either Trump nor Hillary as both don't deserve to be near the White House. Why would you vote for such a liar and flip flopper like trump?

 

No rebuttal?

But of course not, for you can rebutt (*)(*)(*)(*), sonny. Fact

 

Private and official (non classified information in her opinion)

Very few classified emails went through. Something like 120 out of over 33000. That's not "a lot". And none of them were marked classified at the time.

In her opinion she did not send any classified information. She didn't send or receive a single email with any classification markings.

Not a well known fact at all. As Colin Powell has said, reclassification happens and stuff that is not classified at the time can be classified later.

None of what you said is true. The fact is not a single email was marked classified, they had interagency debates on what should or shouldn't be classified, Hillary does not believe any of it should be classified and should be released to the public, and the IG report shows many employees were using personal emails for work related issues. Basically all you got is she broke some rules. Definitely not any criminal laws. Sorry bud, you'll be wrong again. You should be used to it by now though. The fact you don't change is interesting.

 

Sorry but you lost this one, if it was as cut and dry as you wannabe lawyers think it is, this thing would already be done. Hence your amateur lawyering is pointed and you can't refute anything I have said. Have a nice day Dutch, chew on THAT.

 

Lack of rebuttal noted again.

I'm not voting for Trump but he certainly would be more trustworthy than Clinton who has already disqualifies herself by her own actions while in a position of the public trust.

 

When you have something to refute, let me know. So far armchair lawyering is all you have and you can't refute ANYTHING I've said. If it was as cut and dry as you cons think, then why isn't it done by now? Your lack of answer to that is your concession.

Neither is trustworthy and you're basically trying to say one piece of (*)(*)(*)(*) is better than another piece of (*)(*)(*)(*). Sorry, but either way you're playing with (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Nicely done, I feel utterly destroyed. Now, since you can't answer 4 questions at a time, let's try the simple way, one by one.

1. Did the old shoe used her home-brewed email server for both, private and official emails? Yes, No?

 

Again, your simpleton questions do not concern me as you have already been refuted. If this was as cut and dry as you said it would be done by now. Hence it is not, so your simplistic view on the investigation is just that, simple and worthless. I don't play games with armchair lawyers like yourself.

 

I did not think you would, but..

WHF are you doing here, lad? Showing us the folly of our ways?

 

Yep, showing everyone your weak armchair quarterbacking skills. It's going quite well, because you are demonstrating it quite well. Continue on telling us how cut and dry this is, but has been going on for over a year. Come on Dutch, that's the best you got? Weak sauce man, but then you just prove my point more and more.

 

I'm not gonna stoop on your level, laddie. I simply want to point out, you refuse to answer simplest of questions, like

1. Old shoe used her home-brewed email server exclusively for all emails, private and official. Yes, no.

There's no shame in not knowing. Just take a guess? I mean, you have 50% chance in being correct

 

When you can't answer the simpler question of "If it is so cut and dry, then why has it been a year?", I have already refuted your simpleton questions. I would say there isn't shame in you not knowing the answer, but there is since you claim it's all cut and dry. Please continue, it's amusing watching you wannabe lawyers say Hillary is guilty, yet no charges have been filed in this "cut and dry" case you claim. And no, a cut and dry case doesn't take a year so you've already been refuted many many times over now.

 

You refuted the fact, Hillary had exclusively used her homebrewed email server for all commucations, private and official? When did you do that? Where?

I, on the other hand, insist that fact is irrefutable. This is what wiki says:

"The Hillary Clinton email controversy began in March 2015, when it became publicly known that Hillary Clinton, during her tenure as United States Secretary of State, had exclusively used her family's private email server for official communications, rather than official State Department email accounts maintained on federal servers. Those official communications included thousands of emails that would later be marked classified by the State Department"

Go ahead and refute it again, I dare you. And then we can move onto my question 2.

 

OOOOOOOOO BOLD RED Text, does that make you feel "manly"?

Simple question you have yet to answer.....IF it is such a cut and dry case as you claim, why hasn't there been an indictment or trial? A cut and dry case would not require a YEAR to investigate with still no indictment. No amount of red, bold, or big text can change that FACT. You sir, have been refuted just by that alone.

 

Show me where I claimed, this is a cut and dry case or at least implied so? Otherwise, do not put your (*)(*)(*)(*)ing words into my mouth, sonny.

One of my posts will suffice

 

We need an AG that's not a puppet for the administration......it's not that hard.

 

She did not have current clearance when he gave her access.

 

Your questions imply that it is cut and dry. THAT is where it is implied. So you admit it isn't, well that's a start sonny. You really are going to hate it when NOTHING is done about this and you have to say President Hillary

- - - Updated - - -

Ah the conspiracy angle. Sorry doesn't cut it. If it were that cut and dry there would already be a trial.

 

Like the Obama administration's stonewalling of the IRS scandal, stonewalling is why Hillary's issues continue to take up so much time. It often takes court action to get them to be 'transparent'. In the mean time they lie to everyone and those that want to believe the fantasy will.

FLASHBACK: Obama Said “Not a Smidgen of Corruption” in IRS Scandal – Now We Know Over 400 Conservative Groups Targeted