Dvae

the answer - because she's Hillary.

__________________
.
.

Arguing with a troll is a lot like wrestling in the mud with a pig, after a couple of hours you realize the pig likes it.

CaptainHowdy

I'm just here for your avatar pic ...

__________________
FLASH SALE INSANITY! deal with a 100% Trusted Seller
Buy Traffic Spots on a High-Quality Network
1 Year or Lifetime — That’s Right, Until the Internet Explodes!

MiamiBoyz

Because she is a corrupt piece of shit like her husband.

Two parasites who have lived off the public and sucked as much money and power as they can.

In other words...business as usual in Washington.

crockett

In before conservatives start crying...

Oh wait...

__________________
In November, you can vote for America's next president or its first dictator.

dyna mo

Attack trump good

Attack Hillary bad

Hannes

because as a woman in power, she is above the law

ilnjscb

Because hundreds of people much smarter than you, who have worked diligently their entire lives to understand and operate within the law, have not yet decided that they can prosecute her under American law with any reasonable chance of success.

Dvae

Your right!

MiamiBoyz - good conservative.
ilnjscb, dynamo - Ditto

.. and CaptainHowdy just crying over my avatar.

__________________
.
.

Arguing with a troll is a lot like wrestling in the mud with a pig, after a couple of hours you realize the pig likes it.

SilentKnight

House of Cards for real in the good 'ole US of A.

_Richard_

and probably knows where more than one body is buried

cause, if one goes away for classified emails, why aren't others put away for torture? it's an incredibly slippery slope

nico-t

Ignoring this major scandal. Yet when Trump sneezes you analyze everything that was wrong with it.

PR_Glen

and even if they did it wouldn't be a 'jail time' offence.

__________________
webmaster at pimproll dot com

Eric

Rules and Laws are two very different things.

__________________
No One

dyna mo

You have no idea if this is true or false. You seem to think a decision hasn't been made and no time has been spent putting together a cogent recommendation in either direction. The fact is a conclusion could very well be made and resources have been utilized to provide athorough reasoning for it.

dyna mo

So if the FBI recommends prosecution of a Potus candidate, she's still cool because there's no jail time?

That's not someone I'd vote for Potus, willy nilly handling of top secret communications, lying about it, etc. The revelations that she uses her position for cash back favors.

ilnjscb

You imagine that a conclusion can have been drawn before the evidence is clear? With a matter being the focus of as much public scrutiny as this one is, the FBI will not protract the timeline unnecessarily. What I say is true because the moment any of the parties has clear evidence of an actionable offense, it will be presented along with a definitive recommendation to the relevant personnel at the Justice Department by experienced professionals who collectively try hundreds of cases a year. That event, should it ever occur, is not one that can be hidden from the public. If it were to occur, the matter would then be given to Ms. Lynch for her final direction.

The nature of this case means the bar for conviction will need to have been satisfied a priori, and that bar is fairly high. Further, if you know anyone at Justice, you know that they are used to winning. Their conviction rates are very high, approaching, for tax issues for instance, 90%. However, they use a limited set of tools, and often work with laws deliberately crafted to give them an advantage. In this matter, they will not enjoy that advantage and they will not be able to use the "weight" of the federal government against Nominee Clinton.

My guess is that they're trying to figure out how to get out of this right now, without killing their careers.

Rochard

The Republican party is chasing ghosts at this point.

The Republican party tried desperately to make Hillary look bad with Benghazi, and it was all utterly pointless. We had how many investigations into this and to date we've determined no one has done anything wrong.

Now they are trying with this email crap. There is no law that says you cannot transport classified material in a plain manila envelope, public car, or store it in a safe in your personal residence. At worst she can be found guilty of sloppy handling of classified material, which isn't a crime. In the unlikely event this will ever go to trial, they look at intent and damage. There was no bad intent, and there was no damage. Her email server was more secure than the White House severs.

Secretly the Republican party is hoping this doesn't blow up in their face like Obamacare. Oh, they fought tooth and nail to beat Obamacare and nearly did it - which would have results in tens of millions of Americans without healthcare insurance. In the event they charge Hillary with anything, they will have to go back and look what what Rice and Powell did with their email because both of them did the same. This is outstanding idea - in the name of bipartisanship we should investigate both Rice and Powell.

It cracks me up that people are calling Hillary "crooked" while she's never been charged with anything ever, meanwhile Trump is going to trial in November.

__________________
“The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.”
- Sarah Huckabee Sanders

YNOT MAIL | THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION

dyna mo

I can see how a conclusion MAY have been drawn and more evidence and work then being added to create a professional recommendation that won't be lambasted as sloppy or pedantic by the public. A recommendation that stands up to scrutiny and shows the American people that the FBI isn't a Republican gun for hire, that they are a top organization of investigation. I would imagine any conclusion and recommendation they make would demand thoroughness, that level of professionalism takes time. They've werent asked to find her guilty, the State Dept asked the FBI to investigate her and reveal the results of that investigation along with a recommendation.

woj

seems the easiest way would be an official announcement "we found no evidence of any wrong doing" and problem solved? but there was no announcement like that, so I doubt they are "trying to figure out how to get out of this right now"...

__________________
Custom Software Development, email: woj#at#wojfun#.#com to discuss details or skype: wojl2000 or gchat: wojfun or telegram: wojl2000
Affiliate program tools: Hosted Galleries Manager Banner Manager Video Manager
Wordpress Affiliate Plugin Pic/Movie of the Day Fansign Generator Zip Manager

woj

............

__________________
Custom Software Development, email: woj#at#wojfun#.#com to discuss details or skype: wojl2000 or gchat: wojfun or telegram: wojl2000
Affiliate program tools: Hosted Galleries Manager Banner Manager Video Manager
Wordpress Affiliate Plugin Pic/Movie of the Day Fansign Generator Zip Manager

Rochard

I agree. I think the leader of every commission that has investigated Benghazi needs to stand up and say loudly "We found no wrong doing on the part of any one".

This is why I left the Republican - it was pure bullshit. It started with the Whitewater investigation, leading to the eventual impeachment of Bill Clinton. While under oath they had the balls to ask a sitting president highly personal questions about his sex life that had nothing to do with the investigation? What fuck kind of bullshit is that?

__________________
“The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.”
- Sarah Huckabee Sanders

YNOT MAIL | THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION

ilnjscb

Correct.

ilnjscb

While under ordinary circumstances I would agree, I presume that "finding nothing" will give rise to the conclusion that the entire affair was constructed to affect American politics, which is expressly forbidden. Further, while I think Bill is a nice guy, having met Hillary I know she isn't nice. As the president she'll have more experience with the office and with the reigns of power than anyone in the world. I doubt she will let the matter go, and I expect the principles will be removed from positions of power and, to use a euphemism, reassigned.

poncabare

oligarchy protects itself first... always

CDSmith

Christ Eric when did you become so wise? That's like Lensman wise.

__________________
Promote Wildmatch, ImLive, Sexier.com, and more!!

ALWAYS THE HIGHEST PAYOUTS: Big Bux/ImLive SIGNUP ON NOW!!!
Put some PUSSYCA$H in your pocket. ICQ me at: 31024634

dyna mo

sometimes.

in this case, some are the same.

besides, a potus that breaks the rules of intelligence for convenience. i don't really want a lazy president that breaks the rules of how to communicate top-level information, that defies her employer then lies about it, regardless of the difference between rules and laws.

Rochard

It's stunning that anyone doesn't know the difference between a rule and a law.

If you break a department "rule" you might get fired. If you break the law, you might go to jail. The rule was a rule, it was a policy; It was not a law enacted by Congress.

But hey, let's have another investigation into it.

__________________
“The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.”
- Sarah Huckabee Sanders

YNOT MAIL | THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION

dyna mo

No. What's stunning is that an adult male with children doesn't know who enforces rules and who enforces laws. The state department is otr stating Hillary broke the rules. They asked the FBI to investigate if she broke the law.

If you saw a co-worker steal something, you do not prosecute them, do you? Of course not. You call the cops, they investigate and then let the proper people prosecute.

It's stunning I have to spell that out for you.

dyna mo

truly stunning:

the laws the FBI is investigating Hillary under (all are FELONIES):



1.) 18 U.S. Code § 793 – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
18 U.S. Code § 798 – Disclosure of classified information

2.) U.S. Code § 1924 – Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

3.) 18 U.S. Code § 2071(b) — Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

4.) 18 U.S. Code § 641 – Public money, property or records

5.) 18 U.S. Code § 1505 – Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

6.) 18 U.S. Code § 1519 — Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations

7.) 18 U.S. Code § 1031 — Fraud against the United States
18 U.S. Code § 1343 – Fraud by wire, radio or television
18 U.S. Code § 1346 — Definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud”
18 U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to defraud the United States

8.) 18 U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to commit a federal offense

SuckOnThis

Didn't you predict there was no way Hillary was going to get the nomination?

dyna mo

i predicted she was out of the race before it began really and would not win potus because these sorts of things would catch up to her by the election.

Rochard

No, the State Department did not contact the FBI asking them to investigate. Clinton's private email server was first discovered by the House Benghazi Committee. You know, one of "ten investigations into Benghazi" where it was discovered that no one broke any laws. The House Benghazi Committee quickly discovered there was no law broken with Benghazi, but instead began to focus on this email server.

This was yet another witch hunt - You know, just like when they were investigating Whitewater and asked a sitting president personal questions about his sex life.

Basically they just kept looking until they found something that looked bad.

__________________
“The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.”
- Sarah Huckabee Sanders

YNOT MAIL | THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION

dyna mo

it's truly stunning you're in these threads arguing when you don't even have a grasp of the facts of the matter.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/25/us...nity.html?_r=0

Rochard

And?

Still. Hasn't. Broken. Any. Laws.

There is no law saying she cannot transport classified information in her personal car. There is no law saying she cannot transport classified information in a jet airliner. There is no law saying she cannot store classified information at her personals residence. And last, there is no law that says she cannot transmit classified information over an email server.

The original laws about classified information were written at the end of WWII in the late 1940s. This was back when classified information was written on paper. These laws were never meant to be applied to email.

From your article:

The two investigators did not say whether Mrs. Clinton sent or received the emails. If she received them, it is not clear that she would have known that they contained government secrets, since they were not marked classified.

It's entirely possible she didn't know any of this was classified, and then you can argue most of this has been classified after the fact.

Again, with intelligence matters, they look at intent and damage. There was no bad intention, and there was no damage. All we are doing with this case is making is too damn complicated to get anything done - The next time someone in the State Department needs to send an email they'll need to speak to a team of attorney's first.

But of course this is only the first investigation. We'll have to have nine more before it's done.

__________________
“The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.”
- Sarah Huckabee Sanders

YNOT MAIL | THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION

ilnjscb

The difference between rules and laws matters because rules are policy, and generally have no master standard or chain of accountability, as laws do. Breaking a law begins, at least in theory, a transparent series of events that lead to either acquittal or punishment. Being accused of breaking a law does the same. In the US, we have a very high bar for conviction, as well we should.

If Nominee Clinton broke a rule, she did something that was against the policy of an agency set by the appointed leaders of that agency, or a group of leaders above the agency. If she broke a law, she did something that undermines the freedom and security of the United States by failing to adhere to the will of the people.

Was what she did correct? No. She showed the same lack of judgment she showed when she voted for the Iraq war, rushing to do something that seemed convenient and correct at the moment without considering the long term effects. The same lack of judgment, IMHO, that leads her to leap on the anti-snowden bandwagon. This is a serious fault.

However, she is an excellent strategist, and she is not evil, unlike, say, any of the Kennedys. She has assets, including strength or character, motivation, raw intelligence, and a belief in group success, that will be beneficial for this country. She has an unparalleled network, with many powerful people beholden to her. She will not change with power, nor will she abuse her power (much). She will play slow positional chess, and build an inexorable win.

slapass

Maybe because it isn't a law? Also it is a small thing that the previous guy also broke. Look into it with open eyes and you will see it is less of a big deal then you think.

dyna mo

And. That's. What. The. FBI. Is. Investigating. Duh.

The rest of what you wrote was deleted because it doesn't matter. Her employer requested the investigation, you can back seat lawyer that till you're blue in the face and you'd still be making shit up.

Let the FBI do what the state department asked it to do, it's job.

Horatio Caine

Once again, you are wrong

rule
ro͞ol/Submit
noun
plural noun: rules; noun: Rules
one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.

law
lô/Submit
noun
the system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties.

Feel free to argue with Noah Webster on that one.

Horatio Caine

Another cut-and-paste brassmonkey style from hard ass republican websites quoting "an intelligence source told Fox News. Hillary Clinton violated Espionage Act section 18 US Code 793"

Horatio Caine

How did that work out for you Ms. Cleo?

dyna mo

you gfyers crack me up. you don't even have a clue what the fbi does, instead you're scrambling around a dictionary to try to gotcha me on the difference between rules and laws while showing how ignorant you are. you actually think the FBI is a rules investigation outfit?

ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahah


The mission of the FBI is to protect and defend the United States against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats, to uphold and enforce the criminal laws of the United States, and to provide leadership and criminal justice services to federal, state, municipal, and international agencies and partners.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/faqs

dyna mo

i don't do what you do and try and portray myself as a gfy legal scholar. i look to the facts of the matter and post those. you want to claim those facts are irrelevant because it's a c&p?


you lose the argument.

dyna mo

you actually don't know what the POTUS race is for, do you? i'm not surprised.

heads up: it's not for a nomination to run as a democrat. it's, you know, to actually win the race for potus.

you're also not very fun to be around.

dyna mo

i'll repeat for the slow people:

The mission of the FBI is to protect and defend the United States against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats, to uphold and enforce the criminal laws of the United States, and to provide leadership and criminal justice services to federal, state, municipal, and international agencies and partners.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/faqs

make that about me pointing that out all you want.

ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaah

fbi is a rules investigator.

jtfc.

Horatio Caine

Facts? You can stop right there, son. Facts... Cut and paste never been a fact.. and never will.

You lose right there. No need to go farther.

Horatio Caine

Was she out of a race? why do u bother typing all this if I can simply quote your stupidity with one click of the mouse? just like i did from that article on immigration? I don't even bother to argue.

Horatio Caine

To save you keystrokes

CNN Reports FBI Has Found ?No Criminal Wrongdoing? in Hillary Clinton Email ?Investigation? | Mediaite

dyna mo

dear hard of comprehending while needing to make shit up to point your finger,

the race isn't over. you're too dense to comprehend my prediction was she was out of the race before it began due to the email scandal. you fail at realizing that has nothing to do with her entering the race. it has nothing to do with her not yet out of a race that actually just started. and you're too mad to realize i'm not wrong, the race isn't over.

dyna mo

you're desperate. it's not a good look for you. you can't even see you're so far over your head here you're running around getting dictionary definitions to prove that the FBI definition of what it does is wrong to you.

next, that article is over a month old and anyone in this convo should know that the FBI does not comment on pending investigations.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/faqs

dyna mo

it's sad you haven't figured out making predictions is for fun. try having fun sometime instead of trying to gotcha someone for a prediction before the dang race is even over. heck, technically, the potus race is just starting.


lighten up francis.