Scant Evidence That Clinton Had Malicious Intent

Discussion in 'Elections & Campaigns' started by Frowning Loser, May 6, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,325
    Likes Received:
    38,994
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No it gathers the evidence and any adjudication of that is determined by the DOJ and grand jury. And your specious invective refutes nothing. The fact remains the FBI did jot even look at intent so claims that there were no charges filed because no intent was found is laughable at best.
     
  2. akphidelt2007

    akphidelt2007 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    19,979
    Likes Received:
    124
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nope, it investigates and recommends prosecution. They stated no reasonable prosecutor would take this case because the lack of evidence they found. And their decision was based on our laws. And their decision, based on our laws, was exactly what I told you for months. Some people understand our legal system (me) and some people don't and never will (you).
     
  3. Penrod

    Penrod Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2015
    Messages:
    12,507
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    48
    They you mean Comey who made up the intent thing
     
  4. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,325
    Likes Received:
    38,994
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nope it investigates and presents it's evidence to the prosecutors and the grand jury which can further investigate and then THEY reccommend prosecution or not.

    And Comey can not speak for every prosecutor in the country and has already been shown to be making a false statement by actual prosecutors who clearly state they WOULD prosecute the case.

    And you still hinge your argument on intent which he admitted to congress they did not even look into and we see from the 302 reports they did not inquire other than one question to Clinton to which she gave her false response about convenience. And their decision was not based on the law because the law requires no intent and as much as you want to claim otherwise it does not.

    How about this guy, he says he was only working of classified information and had no intent to engage in espionage. Should he not be charged with a crime?

    [video]http://video.foxnews.com/v/5180230499001[/video]
    http://video.foxnews.com/v/51802304...set-for-former-nsa-contractor/?#sp=show-clips
     
  5. akphidelt2007

    akphidelt2007 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    19,979
    Likes Received:
    124
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nope, it investigates and recommends whether there is enough evidence for prosecution. They came to the conclusion no reasonable prosecutor would take the case because there was no evidence of any laws being broken. Sorry about your badass luck. The fact you still can't understand this is pretty surprising, even for someone like you who's always wrong about everything.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Nope, it investigates and recommends whether there is enough evidence for prosecution. They came to the conclusion no reasonable prosecutor would take the case because there was no evidence of any laws being broken. Sorry about your badass luck. The fact you still can't understand this is pretty surprising, even for someone like you who's always wrong about everything.

    - - - Updated - - -

    They, the FBI and career prosecutors who understand the law. Found no evidence worthy of prosecution. Can't just put people in jail because you don't like their political beliefs. This isn't North Korea.
     
  6. Penrod

    Penrod Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2015
    Messages:
    12,507
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    48

    The only one who said that is Comey
     
  7. akphidelt2007

    akphidelt2007 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    19,979
    Likes Received:
    124
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Because he was the one speaking for the case, lol. He mentioned it was the conclusion of career prosecutors and the FBI based on the law. Sorry bud, this ain't North Korea no matter how bad you want it to be.
     
  8. Penrod

    Penrod Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2015
    Messages:
    12,507
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    48
    He is simply another establishment liar. Many prosecutors have comer forward saying they would prosecute the case and win. It seems the entire government is corrupt
     
  9. akphidelt2007

    akphidelt2007 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    19,979
    Likes Received:
    124
    Trophy Points:
    0
    He upheld the law and put aside partisan nonsense. He even called you guys celebrity hunters because he knew the only reason this was a big issue was politics and had nothing to do with the law. He did his job. This isn't North Korea. Sorry bud.
     
  10. Penrod

    Penrod Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2015
    Messages:
    12,507
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    48
    No he walked all over it. Show me where it requires intent. It seems more like the USSR. He didnt want to go down as the guy who took out a candidate for president
    Indeed put aside you partizan nonsense

    All that required is gross negligence which Comey said she was guilty of. Did the sailor who took a selfie intend to share secrets ? Still he was prosecuted
     
  11. akphidelt2007

    akphidelt2007 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    19,979
    Likes Received:
    124
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It doesn't have to say the words intent. That is how the law has been interpreted for about a century. I said the entire time that is how it is interpreted. It's not some conspiracy, it's the basic understanding of the law. People do not go to jail in America for simply mishandling classified information. There always has to be intent.
     
  12. Aleksander Ulyanov

    Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    41,184
    Likes Received:
    16,180
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Wah, wah, NOBODY likes us, just because we're a bunch of politically motivated legalistic bullies, wwaaahhhh

    If the ENTIRE government thinks you're a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)bag most people might just come to the conclusion that they were possibly wrong in their suppositions, conservatives come to the conclusion the entire government is corrupt. Of course these ARE the people who think a four time bankrupt con man who brags about how many girls he's raped would make a FINE President
     
  13. Penrod

    Penrod Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2015
    Messages:
    12,507
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I dont think he will make a great or even good president and I wont vote for him. But your side thinks Slick Willy was a great president and would vote him back in office in a heartbeat

    - - - Updated - - -

    No it has not. Again did the sailor who took the selfie have intent to distribute secrets. Hillary did intend to avoid FOIA requests. Thats why she used a private sever
     
  14. Frowning Loser

    Frowning Loser Banned

    Joined:
    May 28, 2008
    Messages:
    3,379
    Likes Received:
    126
    Trophy Points:
    63
    When it comes to intent the espionage courts disagree with you and in this particular case so does Comey. Your pure ignorant factless speculation does not = any lack of comprehension on my part.
     
  15. Frowning Loser

    Frowning Loser Banned

    Joined:
    May 28, 2008
    Messages:
    3,379
    Likes Received:
    126
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Patrious did have intent. He had every intent to take home with him documents that were labeled Top secret and give them to his biographer. He admitted it. This is an old story of claiming that H Clinton's actions mirrored that of Patrious' . This old chestnut has been debunked many times. You are clinging to old debunked crap.
     
  16. BestViewedWithCable

    BestViewedWithCable Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    48,288
    Likes Received:
    6,966
    Trophy Points:
    113
    nope, hillary violated American National Security for her own personal convenience. Its a fact.
     
  17. Frowning Loser

    Frowning Loser Banned

    Joined:
    May 28, 2008
    Messages:
    3,379
    Likes Received:
    126
    Trophy Points:
    63

    Ignorance! Comy was relying on actual cases in espionage courts that proved intent had to be part of any prosecution.
     
  18. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Intention isn't mentioned in the appropriate law.

    If you drove drunk and ran over a kid, would you go free because you didn't intend to run over anyone?
     
  19. Phoebe Bump

    Phoebe Bump New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    26,347
    Likes Received:
    172
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Even tho they might be identical under the law, apparently neither are criminal under the law. Don't ask me, I don't get it, either.
     
  20. Conviction

    Conviction Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2016
    Messages:
    3,235
    Likes Received:
    829
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If it's anyone other than Clinton, that person would be stripped from their classified status and possibly jailed. Certainly, wouldn't be allowed to become president.
     
  21. Gatewood

    Gatewood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2013
    Messages:
    47,624
    Likes Received:
    48,666
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Psssst . . . Comey just spat on your rebuttal. Enjoy.
     
  22. Frowning Loser

    Frowning Loser Banned

    Joined:
    May 28, 2008
    Messages:
    3,379
    Likes Received:
    126
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Yes it is Comey was aware of the past history of Espionage cases. Those cases always demanded that intent be proven as well as the strength of the evidence. He did not make this up. But you are.

    Petreaus admitted that he deliberately took Classified documents home with him in order to let his biographer see them and get a sense of his history.

    More propaganda the sailer took 29 photos of the engine room and admitted he know this was a classified area.
    That’s because you are ignorant of case law and the requirements for prosecution in a case like this. Comey stated that the strength of evidence was so weak that it wasn’t prosecutable. Espionage courts have always considered intent to knowingly jeopardize the Country's safety.

    Not according to Comey and not according to previous espionage court cases. But you’re not arguing anything that involves precedents or real law. Yours are merely hack conclusion.
     
  23. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,325
    Likes Received:
    38,994
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    In none of the cases you cited was there an intent to jeopardize national security and that is not required under the law. And Coney was mkt the person to make that decision.
     
  24. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,325
    Likes Received:
    38,994
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    They were his personal notes and had no markings and his biographer had clearance. Clinton intended to use an unnsecured server and unsecured equipment.

    You and making distinctions without merit.
     
  25. Penrod

    Penrod Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2015
    Messages:
    12,507
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    48
    He wasnt following the law. Intent s not needed
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page