Scant Evidence That Clinton Had Malicious Intent

Intent or not, her gross ignorance and negligence, along with documented periods of memory loss, leave her mentally incapable of performing her duties as POTUS.....

 

How does the willful destruction of emails and devices square with "scant evidence of malice"?

 

And of course in a criminal judicial matter willful lying and destruction of evidence demonstrates consciousness of guilt.

 

If Hillary wins, what mades anyone think Hillary won't be padding her coffer and policies that favor big money (doing favors) for the next election. Every department is politicized. Hillary won't even be caught when she continue's her corrupt practices let alone reported.

I don't understand why people are so willing to overlook Hillary Clintons corruption.

 

Over and over and over again when it comes to Hillary Clinton you insist on using the word "intent" the wrong way. Your mind is steeped in utter hatred for her. I've explained what the espionage courts and what Comey means by intent so many time to you in past posts that I can only conclude you distort and fictionalize the meaning of the word out of desperate desire to bash H. Clinton in any desperate way that you can.


Also your deep fiction about Patraeus's black books can readily be seen.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/04/u...ver-giving-classified-data-to-lover.html?_r=0

"They are highly classified, some of them,” Mr. Petraeus replied, according to an excerpt from the taped interview included in court documents. Three weeks later, Mr. Petraeus emailed Ms. Broadwell and agreed to share the black books. He gave them to her the next day."

 

Hillary's answer what that she is brain damaged from a stroke and brain blood clot so is unable to remember any briefing meetings, can not remember anything she signs and does not understand how to read documents. Essentially she made the insanity defense, so brain damaged that she can not be held accountable for anything she does nor has any concept of right and wrong.

Severely brained damaged president who can not remember anything and can not understand any documents - just what this country needs now - a mentally incompetent brain damaged president who can't remember anything and can not understand the meaning of any government document..

 

Wow! A mentally damaged president who cannot remember or comprehend? Show me where I can vote for a dream candidate like that!

 

I bet they raise the price of staying in the Lincoln bedroom

 

Why do you insist on trying to force Hillary's crimes into the "espionage" box? No one has accused Hitlary of espionage, they have accused her of doing three things that are now proven: A) using a private e-mail server for government business; B) mishandling classified documents; and C) destroying evidence and obstructing justice by deleting e-mails that were under subpoena. All three of these are subject to criminal penalties, and the latter two by prison sentences. What part of this escapes your understanding? Comey is the one who brought intent into this, but intent is not necessary to be guilty of mishandling classified documents, negligence works just as well. Why do you think the entire FBI hated Comey's guts after his appearance before Congress letting Satan's sister off the hook? Because they all AGREED with his decision? Because Hillary was INNOCENT? If you believe that, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona I'd like to sell you. Seriously, the left would probably be better off trying to sell the notion that Hillary really IS above the law than to sell the notion that she is innocent.

What's your response to the Clinton Foundation scandal, that Hillary was selling access to her for millions of dollars to foreign governments?

 

Because thats what she violated

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

 

You come into the middle of an argument without the slightest idea of what it's about This was the kind of response I was debating:

"Is there some reason you cannot comprehend the law? " INTENT DOES NOT MATTER when it comes to mishandling classified material. It is the fact that the material was mishandled that matters under the law. "

Go back and look at the previous quotes I was responding to . Your rant has notching to do with my previous posts or the posts I was debating. Read up before you jump in the middle of an argument that you cannot comprehend.

 

And I have asked repeatedly for you to explain what intent is missing and you've yet to come up with anything, but then it is a moot point anyway, no intent required to violate the law.

And your rebuttals are so lacking in merit that is about all you are left with.

There were no markings on Pertreasus information, yet he violated the law. He like Hillary at the least improperly stored classified information and let someone who DID have clearance but not a need to know view it.

Hillary did that in spades and handed over to people without clearances with abandoned.

And as desperate as you are it just won't go away will it.

And not marked classified and since he had not intent to do any harm why was he charged with anything?

 

Then why did all the saliva l land on your face.

 

You're voting for Trump aren't you?

 

Lol . Besides telling you on numerous occasions the definition of intent I even posted on post 772. Do you know what thread your on.???

Do you even know what a rebuttal is? Maybe that's why you truly don't recognize them when you see them.

This was well refuted in my last post on the subject. He new that his Black books were classified and admitted it.

Not according to Comey. Do you always make up your own stuff.

Wait a minute. Who's the one defying Comey?? Lol it won't go away because you keep drawing this out due to deep hatred of Hillary. Comey told you you lost this one but you keep pretending that you didn't . Deep fiction on your part.

Meanwhile Trump is the one requesting that Russians hack into State department emails and he tells us of his love for Wikileaks although the FBI stated (with high confidence) that many of the emails were hacked by the Russians who are interfering with the U.S elections. Remember Trump is 100% anti American, he is a Putinista. Not that it bothers you heh heh.

 

You gave some specious examples which have already been refitted. Try again what intent is missing from her purposeful storing of classified information on an unsecured server.

Yes and it is certainly not desperately trying to paint emotions on the other party. Perhaps you should go study up on it.

And of course I didn't say it wasnt classifed information go back and read more slowly. It was mkt marked classified and had no classified headers, you know like Hillary's claim.

Ahh he testified to the FBI findings that the server was handed over to Platte and those people had no clearance and gave out thumbdrives to attorney's who had no clearances.

As seperate as you are this will not go away and if you believe the Russians were sitting around waiting for Trump to give them permission through a cynical flippant remark to hack her server I got a bridge to sell you.

 

So you claim the part in red is not true ? If it is and it certainly is, Hillary violate the law

 

Only if in desperation you become Hillary's judge jury and executioner all all at once. You see in this country we have the rule of law. Comey has said that Clinton has done nothing to violate the law. His is the only ruling in this matter that counts per the law. Your evaluation of her is meaningless.

 

[

Except that's what espionage courts and Comey say is essential. Not your fantasy thinking borne out of hatred for Hillary C

So far you've proven that you don't

Any document having classified information that winds up in his home is unlawful. Patreous admitted this. Duh.

Duh per Comey it's whether you deliberately intended to reveal classified information in a way that would jeopardize our nation and whether you admitted that you believed the documents were classifed. And in your zest to bash Hillary you forget that the State Department and other Intelligence agencies quarrel about what documents can truly be called classified. Comey admitted that some documnets marked classified shouldn't have been labeled so.

That's because you and you ilk defy what Comey has ruled out of anger and hatred for Hillary C. The main thing is to prevent a racist Putinista like Trump who wont release his tax returns and will be tried in November for fraud in the Trump University case from getting elected. (And Trump is Someone you prefer as the president.) Also the Democrats need to control the Senate and this will fade. The Republicans will be busy trying to rebuild unification and may try to retire Ryan from the speaker of the House. Republican officials admit they will have a ton of work to do rebuilding their party.

 

no, intent is not required and Comey is an FBI agent, not a judge.

 

Wrong he is an FBI director in charge of making decisions like this based on his vast knowledge of espionage law and years of experience.Comey says you are 100% wrong. Keep trying to discredit the messenger because you don't like the message. Your low tactics are as clear as bathwater and cliche. Got anything original to say?

 

Most of the laws Clinton violated by using a private unsecured server do not require intent.

“Despite his defense of Comey's character and justification for why he didn't recommend prosecution, Hosko [former FBI Assistant Director Ron Hosko] said he believes the elements for indictment were clearly met based on a cold read of the federal statute to which Comey referred.”

“Under the statute, it is a felony to mishandle classified information intentionally or through gross negligence. Hosko said Comey seemed to introduce an element of intent that is not enshrined in that statute.”
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/06/why-fbi-director-comey-didnt-recommend-prosecution-for-clinton.html

 

Show me where any law says its up to the FBI director that counts. Its not even supposed to up to him

 

Your question is nonsensical.

As chief of the FBI he has the right to advise the Justice Department as to whether to go ahead and prosecute based on his investigation. You actually believe that you and your crew only have that right Lol. You have no such power and no one else does. The justice department doesn't have to take his advice but he explained thoroughly why the need to prosecute was not necessary. He was more intimate with the case and espionage laws than anyone else. Ultimately the Justice Department makes the final decision as to whether to prosecute. The Justice Dept has the absolute right to make a final decision based on Comey's conclusion. That's the way it works like it or not.

Once again you don't like the message so you try to kill the messenger by asking outlandish, otherworldly questions. This is clear as bathwater.

 

I love how conservatives think a 70 year old grandmother is a hacker mastermind.

They watch way to much CSI.