If you think criticism of Trump’s lies makes someone a “leftist,” you might be a Trump cultist.

[exGOPer]

How rich is it that one Eric Schneiderman is telling CNN that he’s concerned about impropriety in this case. I was laughing so hard I couldn’t read the rest of the article.

The guy resigned, your guy who bragged about assaulting woman, who has child rape cases against him, who is on camera making passes at 10 year old girls, bragging about seeing teenage girls naked is STILL your moral conservatives value leader.

laugh about that.

 

[bone]

You guys have been investigating Clintons for decades and still nothing but it's everyone else's fault?

Speaking of ‘everyone else’s fault’, have you read Hillary Rodham Clinton’s post-election Book entitled: “What Happened” ?

 

[exGOPer]

Speaking of ‘everyone else’s fault’, have you read Hillary Rodham Clinton’s post-election Book entitled: “What Happened” ?

So everything is solely her fault? Donald Trump and his cabal getting investigated by his own DOJ is a nothingburger but the entire election loss must be attributed to Hillary alone? Double standards much?

 

[Cuddles]

How rich is it that one Eric Schneiderman is telling CNN that he’s concerned about impropriety in this case. I was laughing so hard I couldn’t read the rest of the article.

oh...ok, I guess that makes the crime go away then

 

[exGOPer]

oh...ok, I guess that makes the crime go away then

It's funny how not a single Con can answer directly without resorting to whataboutism, They will be bringing up Ted Kennedy now if the script is correct.

 

[bone]

It's funny how not a single Con can answer directly without resorting to whataboutism, They will be bringing up Ted Kennedy now if the script is correct.

No, we’ll leave the Kennedys out of it for now unless you want to talk about Democrats and women’s rights.

I have said many times here on ET that Donald Trump is an self aggrandizing boorish asshole. That’s on the record. I’ve called him an asshole dozens of times.

In terms of Donald Trump and lawsuits and accusations there’s been thousands of them over the years. Take your pick:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lawsuits_involving_Donald_Trump

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump

 

[Cuddles]

 

[jem]

you were wrong about intent... no matter how many new questions you attempt to side track us with.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook/

"There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust.
Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services."


---
here is one of the laws for which she had no defense...
I am sure you will agree... criminal intent or whatever type of intent you speak of is not an element of the crime... hence a lack of intent is not a defense.
Hence it is possible, if here attorney put her on the stand...
if he started asking questions about her state of mind, the prosecutor will object as to relevance and the objections sustained.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

(f)
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.

Good, jem. That's precisely what the government's attorney would say at her trial. Now tell us, precisely, what her defense attorney will say to the jury. And then tell us what the jury is going to say. And then you'll understand why she wasn't prosecuted.

Also, jem, because of your law training you've learned to carefully parse words. I am confident then, that you know the differences between: 'can be,' 'should be,' might be,' and 'is,' and therefore I am also confident you read correctly: 'Lack of criminal intent can be a reason why successful prosecution is unlikely.'

As one of ET's great legal minds you'll know there are other aspects besides intent, one of which is damages. Life could be so much simpler were there only laws, lawyers and judges and no juries -- juries that never went to law school.

 

[Poindexter]

Huh? Proof of what that she was OCA? Try reading

Classification Authority.
(a) The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by:
(1) the President and the Vice President;
(2) agency heads and officials designated by the President; and


https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13526

So who was the agency head for the State department designated by Obama?

Are you really this stupid?

1. Hillary, even as an OCA, was required to sign an NDA and had the exact same duty to protect classified information as any non-OCA with a clearance. BTW, marked or unmarked is irrelevant (as I've highlighted) so there goes another of your strawmen.

2. Hillary could only declassify information in her delegated area. Read your own reference. Hillary had classified information on her server she had zero authority to declassify.

3. Google the OCA desktop reference and you'll also find that OCAs can only downgrade or declassify information for valid reasons. Personal convenience is NOT one of them.

4. There are over 2,000 OCAs so being one is not the big deal you make it out to be. And they can no more abuse their status than a physician can their ability to prescribe drugs.

You're an idiot and the "investigation" into Hillary's server and emails was a total sham.

 

[piezoe]

you were wrong about intent... no matter how many new questions you attempt to side track us with.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook/

"There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust.
Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services."


---
here is one of the laws for which she had no defense...
I am sure you will agree... criminal intent or whatever type of intent you speak of is not an element of the crime... hence a lack of intent is not a defense.
Hence it is possible, if here attorney put her on the stand...
if he started asking questions about her state of mind, the prosecutor will object as to relevance and the objections sustained.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

(f)
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.

Yah, too bad there are juries who never went to law school, and some who are barely literate. Bummer.