HRC

You do realize that mishandling classified information as a federal employee is a felony right?
 
you are answering questions with questions leading me to believe you haven't the foggiest what you are talking about.

proof please to back up your claim
 
That Is Proof. She mishandled classified information. She destroyed evidence. It's all public knowledge. You need to leave your echo chamber. Google is your friend.
 
Sean Hannity‏Verified account @seanhannity

More bad news for Hillary Clinton tonight… John Solomon and @SaraCarterDC will join me next #Hannity
 
The way I understand it, the case for a prosecution on those statutes rests on intent. Other similar cases have been prosecuted on the basis of intent, and have usually included charges for attempting to deceive investigators. In this case there was judged to be no intent, and no leaking or private use of the material at issue.

Whether she got the benefit of the doubt because of her stature and political possibilities is an open question, albeit one that's quite hard to prove either way. But I would assume any political considerations in her favor would be counterbalanced by the fact that DoJ officials would be quite aware that Congressional Rs in oversight positions would be quite anxious to check their work.

So even in the draft memo states that they didn't think it was possible to prove intent, ergo no prosecutable case.

I sincerely doubt that anyone, from HRC camp or the DoJ, is going to go down for this.

But, yannow, kudos to Hannity and company for making sure this pressing issue doesn't get swept under the rug. It's not like the actual current President is under investigation or anything.
 
You may be right on intent. Gorka contends intent is not a factor when it comes to federal employees and classified information. We are going to find out.

The foundation is more of what I wanted. Not sure how anyone can honestly believe nothing seemed off about it. The email investigation for me is more about assessing if the fbi handled the investigation differently than the Russia gate case and whether or not some of you want tI say that matters.
 
sturg33 said:
Yeah but how did they get this information???!!!???
Click to expand...

Yeah, let's ignore selling out the American people to the highest bidder. The real issue is Russia because we are sure they hacked us but have no proof that they did. Brilliant sturg.
 
thethe said:
You may be right on intent. Gorka contends intent is not a factor when it comes to federal employees and classified information. We are going to find out.

The foundation is more of what I wanted. Not sure how anyone can honestly believe nothing seemed off about it. The email investigation for me is more about assessing if the fbi handled the investigation differently than the Russia gate case and whether or not some of you want tI say that matters.
Click to expand...

Oh. *Gorka* says so.

In that case, Bush AG Alberto Gonzalez should've been convicted. Lots of people should've. But that isn't the standard that is generally applied.
 
Julio3000 said:
Oh. *Gorka* says so.

In that case, Bush AG Alberto Gonzalez should've been convicted. Lots of people should've. But that isn't the standard that is generally applied.
Click to expand...

Generally? What's the law and how is it determined when it's applied?
 
I think the most likely outcome of more information and more transparency about DoJ actions is going to tend to undercut your conspiracy theories rather than support them.

Like, I'm sure you've looked at the FOIA'd emails showing McCabe's timeline and scrupulous process of recusal when his wife ran for office. You have, haven't you?
 
I've read that and concede the time line of his COI was incorrect. Let's find out more information.

Even still it's not a great sign when that much money is funneled to a political campagna that has connections to the fbi IMO.
 
thethe said:
Generally? What's the law and how is it determined when it's applied?
Click to expand...

The statute specifies "knowingly and with intent," which is hard to prove, which is why most prosecutors aren't eager to take these cases on unless they're really strong, there is some kind of intent judged to be malicious, and/or clear intent to deceive.
 
thethe said:
I've read that and concede the time line of his COI was incorrect. Let's find out more information.

Even still it's not a great sign when that much money is funneled to a political campagna that has connections to the fbi IMO.
Click to expand...

You're concerned about an FBI official's wife's political financing. You're not concerned about Trump's personal finances or aid to his campaign from whomever. Got it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top