BREAKING Lorreta Lynch under investigation!

I think it would be interesting to know how much money he owes to German banks, whether the Russians loaned him money, what his gross is and how much he donated to charities.

 

Fine. Call it an educated guess then. Yes, there is/was complicity. ms Clinton sending to Huma via non govt services constitutes criminality, Huma sending to Wiener breeches classification law, disclosing to non vetted husband, and printing from an unsecure print service at her home.

Lots of dots there to connect. We have gross negligence, and we have intent. Are you suggesting that there are any claims of ignorance of the law here?

 

There were several statutes bandied about at the time They either required intent or, as you say, gross negligence.

This is the crux of the matter. "Gross negligence" is a very high bar. And no, "extremely careless" is not "gross negligence" by another name. Which should be obvious, because Comeynused those words, but found no cause to charge Hillary with gross negligence.

As noted, some of the statutes involved require intent.

As well, Comey had just gotten done explaining the history of prosecutions under that statute, and noting that in every case, people weren't prosecuted merely for being careless, but for being almost intentionally careless. That's basically what "gross negligence" means -- being SO over-the-top negligent that it almost HAD to be on purpose.

So no, he didn't lie. He harshly criticized Hillary, while noting that what she had done did not meet the historical bar for prosecution.

 

Makes perfect sense.Billo Clinton gave Lynch a promotion while serving
as President.They had that VERY suspicious 30 minute meeting on a
tarmac.
Lynch as DOJ Attorney general has to sign-off on whatever
report the FBI submits as far as an Investigation.The FBI is under the
auspice of the DOJ.They are the DOJ's Internal Watchdog.
Lynch was also suspiciously negligent in her role as U.S.Attorney
investigation major Bank fraud at HSBC. No person went to jail.
We're talking Billions in laundered money.

 

It's not even that. It's more like wishful thinking.

Seriously, a memo written by some anonymous staffer that "read one way, is just the usual Washington chatter." You think something that vague is going to serve as prosecutable evidence of wrongdoing? Dream on. There would need to be FAR more evidence to even consider bringing charges -- assuming there was any actual wrongdoing in the first place.

*Sigh.* No, it doesn't. Sending emails from one unclassified account to another is not criminal. Not realizing that some of the emails may have contained classified information is not a crime, even before you get into the ridiculous overclassification our government engages in.

Again, it is not illegal to handle unclassified emails in an unclassified manner.

Hardly. More like wishful thinking, using claims that were debunked long ago.

No, we actually don't. That is more wishful thinking.

 

Comey read two of them.

Neither requires malicious intent. In fact the word malicious doesn't even appear. They require intent OR(that word is very important) gross negligence.

You can say it isn't, but many lawyers disagree, including several former federal prosecutors who said they would have prosecuted her.

The history has nothing to do with it. All the abortion challenges were struck down until they weren't and abortion became legal. All the gay marriage cases were struck down before they weren't, making gay marriage legal. If you want to go that route, then nothing could have ever been prosecuted in the first place, since it hadn't happened before.

What's funny is the case that they began to prosecute under the gross negligence part, but the guy copped a plea deal. He was certainly being prosecuted under it, it just never finished due to plea bargain.

Reality shows us she lied several times about her server. That(according to testimony from Comey) in itself is evidence of intent.

 

You are not allowed to remove classified material from where it's supposed to be. So yes, sending it to where it is, by law, not allowed to be, is against the law.

 

I suppose if I look at it from your perspective, I'd agree, you are engaged in a ton of wishful thinking. The unfortunate testimony is Comey actually calling the emails transferred "classified" which generally undermines the majority of your optimism.

 

And do you even know the name or reputation of the Democratic operative that wrote the account? Or whether the account has been independently verified like multiple aspects of the Steele Dossier?

Ok then.

 

No idea.
Not true.
No idea.
No idea.
No.

 

How close were the polls to the actual vote total? Were they within the margin of error?

 

What does any of your alt left extremist blabber have to do with Lynch and her bigotry?

 

I provided an apropos contrast. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/peeing-russian-prostitutes.503874/ We can best discuss what's been verified here.

 

I started a thread with the conversations the media had with the parents. Anyone who claim they are lying, is scum

 

Why would anyone care if Obama didn't show something no one is required to show?
My tax dollars? Like my tax dollars going to Obama expanding Bush's drone program? How many civilians were killed? Did you enjoy your tax dollars going to useless deaths?

 

Please tell me you aren't praising holder...
Please for the love of god tell me you think he was "good". Because we have a source battle coming on!

 

Do we really have to re-litigate this? Fine. See below.

Are you really trying to argue in favor of unequal treatment under the law?

Precedent is not absolute, but it is highly important, as it should be. If Comey had prosecuted Hillary for actions that other people weren't prosecuted for, he would have been accused -- quite rightly -- of selective prosecution. And your examples aren't even really on point, because they involve civil cases, not criminal, where people kept suing -- and losing, and appealing -- until they found an argument that worked. That's a far different situation than prosecutors deciding whether to file charges.

Intent to set up a private server for unclassified government emails is not a crime. It may be a very bad idea, and Hillary was rightly pilloried for that. But it is not a crime.

The criminal question turned on whether she knowingly (or with gross negligence) "removed" or shared classified information and exposed it in an unsecure setting. There was insufficient evidence of that to prosecute.

Here is Comey's relevant testimony:
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system


In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

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 that is not what we are deciding now.


This is not difficult. He lays out the history of prosecution, and concludes that "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring charges, given the available evidence and how such cases have been handled in the past.

Precisely, BTW, as I posted for months beforehand. An objective reading of the law made it clear that prosecution was unlikely, absent the FBI uncovering something clearly incriminating.

Shockingly, I was right, and your former prosecutors -- you wouldn't be referring to partisan nutjobs like Andrew Napolitano, would you? -- were wrong.

Does that mean Clinton DIDN'T break the law? Of course not. Only that there was insufficient evidence of such to warrant prosecution. Feel free to speculate that she got away with something.

But please don't assert positively that she broke the law, because that is even less supportable than claiming she did nothing illegal.

 

Obviously, you don't understand the details of the issue, or the relevant law. This was gone over ad nauseum at the time. Please find some balanced sources and review the history of the FBI investigation and its conclusion.

 

What?

 

She lied to the FBI.., (according to Comey's video recorded statements to Trey Gowdy), which is illegal, just for starters...

 

There are dozens more, but you already know this.

 

But LYING about material as a Secretary-of-State whether
Classified or Unclassified especially when Congress is involved
is a very serious matter.Which explains why Little Susan Rice
is refusing to go appear on the hill in order to answer questions.
She's Guilty as hell,like Hillary was.Like Lois Lerner was.
Like Eric Holder was and was The Only Active Cabinet official
in American History to be charged and found guilty of Contempt.
Joe DiGenova said last night on Tucker that what Director Comey
did last July with his public statement deserved Immediate Firing.
He should have been fired immediately after giving his public
statement.Comey broke all kinds of Protocol.
Look for Director Comey to be asked by the Trump Adm.
TO STEP DOWN.Or Else face being Fired.

 

So the only thing that can be discussed is Trump all other matters are deflections?

 

What would have bad to come out of it for you to be satisfied?

So as long as Trump is in office all other matters are verboten?

 

Professing preponderance of your ignorance doesn't seem to be helping you here. If by "balanced", perhaps you could recommend what you feel is "balanced". This should be truly interesting.