Oh no.......thousands of Bernie fans moving to....TRUMP?!

Only if the 19 year old is the oldest at the party. They'll get contributing to the delinquency of a minor for anyone below 17.

 

they will also charge 19 year olds with underage drinking

were not talking about 17 year olds, only adults here

.

 

Why would the FBI indict Hillary for being the potential victim of having her server hacked?

- - - Updated - - -

Because there is a PRIMARY to choose the Dem candidate.

 

You make some of the dumbest (*)(*)(*)(*)ing accusations.

 

The DoS, DoJ and the Executive branch have all stipulated in court that there was no wrongdoing on Hillary's part when it came to deleting emails. She was within her legitimate rights to do so even if they had been on DoS servers. There is no criminal investigation of Hillary. The FBI is investigating to see if her server was hacked in which case she would be the victim of hacking and therefore not subject to any indictment.

So there is no "fall" for anyone to take. Just extremist rightwinger disinformation.

 

Appreciate the sentiment ...

But gonna have to pass - as in EWWW!!

 

No 30BZ .. i don't do conspiracy theories.

That said, i find them endlessly effiing AMUSING!

Do continue!

 

That's entirely wrong. There most definitely is a criminal investigation going on.
That's why her former staffer, Pagliano, was granted immunity.

 

I think if Trump wasn't running Bernie might be doing better, because Bernie would be the only anti-trade candidate. It's definitely more likely Trump voters would go to Sanders than Sanders voters would go to Trump, because Trump doesn't really have principles to go along with his populism.

 

DoS cleared Hillary;

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/08...al-falls-state-dept-policy-private-email.html

DoJ cleared Hillary;

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/10/justice-department-rules-hillary-clinton-followed-/

FBI shuts down email investigation of Hillary;

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/fbi-shuts-down-hillary-clinton-email-investigation-effort/22504/

The current FBI investigation is to determine if Hillary was the victim of having her server hacked.

The FBI doesn't indict the victims of crimes.

 

Hillary may be, Obama never was. He just lied the way trump is doing pretending to be a republican

 

They should look back to when they started pitching this kind of crap, and see if it matches when their sales started to slump. Bet it started around the time they started "lovin' it"

 

Latest I heard was about Hillary's aides, and password sharing....thats not hacking.
Sorry, I'm sticking with my call. Someone else is going to take this one for her, as always seems to happen with these elites.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ared-passwords-to-access-classified-info.html


You can see it coming.

 

Actually it is very common for executives to give their admins their email passwords. The admins read everything and then only pass on what it essential for the executives to deal with personally. Standard Operating Procedure across the board at the C level. And again, if there was NO INTENTION to violate the law then there won't be any indictments.

 

"Executives"? We arent talking about the CEO of K-Mart. What might be common for "executives" obviously isnt the same for Officials or a Sec of State.

Not as easilly brushed off as you would like it seems.

 

Executives of her generation are all the same regardless of the organizations that they run.

All organizations prohibit the sharing of passwords so the DoS is no different to Kmart in that regard.

There won't be any indictment unless it can be PROVEN beyond any reasonable doubt that the password was shared with malicious intentions.

That is not as easy as you imagine that it will be. There will have to be an email trail PROVING that she knew that it was wrong and that she deliberately and intentionally shared her password for the express purpose of causing harm to this nation. Uncorroborated hearsay won't cut it either.

 

I guess you missed the classified part. Everybody knows she deleted emails that she didn't anyone seeing, and we know why. But she was sending classified mail which wasn't supposed to be sent, just in case the server that mail is on is ever hacked.

 

Sorry, but the sharing of passwords is prohibited it has no bearing on malicious intent or not.

 

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse even for a nitwit like Hilary.

 

Here's the funny part. They went from advertising for the children, which in turn the parents would take them, to advertising for college aged millennials. The ages they appeal to has changed, but not the mindset.

Remember the 80's?

[video=youtube;jdwyZPNoFT8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdwyZPNoFT8[/video]

Compare that to now. And before this McPick 2 crap, it was the McRib ad with the hipster crying when he snatched his bag from the drive through employee.

 

That has already been dealt with and Hillary has been cleared of all wrongdoing WRT the emails. The links proving that to be the case were provided in #135 above.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=446599&page=14&p=1065925547#post1065925547

 

Sure, at the 7-11 down on 66th street maybe. Not when there's classified information though.

 

I've done the 3rd party more time than not.
This time thought, I will have to go anyone who will beat hillary. Anyone. And I doubt any 3rd party would do that. But if the 3rd party is taking votes away from her, just as good. But only if it's taking votes away from her.

 

Obviously you haven't actually read the manual for yourself and instead are just relying upon your misinformation sources.

The manual stipulates that passwords must not be shared and then it defines the penalties for infractions and violations. Infractions happen all the time and are not considered serious enough to have comprised the integrity of the data. Only deliberate malicious intention to compromise the integrity of the data will result in prosecution for violating the password policies and procedures.

And yes, that must be proven to be the case beyond any reasonable doubt in a court of law.

 

Pretty ignorant statement, IMO. But if true, no one to blame but the parents.