FBI completes Clinton email probe, recommends no criminal charges

cawacko said:
Facts? As if you're any less defensive or protective of her misdeeds than those who accuse her of doing everything wrong?

If you're goal is to have the first (liberal) woman President everything else be dammed then I can actually respect that because at least you're being honest.

But claiming the Clinton's are somehow on the up and up requires a suspension of reality.
Click to expand...

No politician is on the up and up, I just don't believe the Clintons are more corrupt than the Bushs, Romney, Newt or any of the rest, this is the point I was trying to make.
 
Darla said:
Didn't Colin Powell do the same thing except he destroyed all of his emails?

Oh sorry, didn't mean to interrupt the rage furby.

Carry on.
Click to expand...

No he did not do the SAME thing. Have Grind mansplain the difference to you sweetie

Now where are you with bumping Deshtards threads? No balls?
 
it looks like there needs to be "vast quantities" of gross mishandling of classified materials ( what is the definition of vast quantities?)
OR
"Clear and intentional willful mishandling"- which goes to her intent; and her intent isn't clearly to mishandle.
It sure looks like intent especially with her words about not letting her emails be seen ( FOIA)

It looks to me like if you parse out every single point - by itself - it's not enough to indict.
But if you present a case en toto ( as a prosecutor would) there is intent..
But Comey is also citing precedence - and the precedence is not there??
 
anatta said:
it looks like there needs to be "vast quantities" of gross mishandling of classified materials ( what is the definition of vast quantities?)
OR
"Clear and intentional willful mishandling"- which goes to her intent; and her intent isn't clearly to mishandle.
It sure looks like intent especially with her words about not letting her emails be seen ( FOIA)

It looks to me like if you parse out every single point - by itself - it's not enough to indict.
But if you present a case en toto ( as a prosecutor would) there is intent..
But Comey is also citing precedence - and the precedence is not there??
Click to expand...
It isn't?
 
anatta said:
Clinton & staff is only "extremely careless" but not a criminal. Sounds like a great campaign slogan..

There were classified markings, the whole thing is very fishy...but it's typical the Clintons ride the edge of legality without repercussion.
It must be a fun way to go thru life.
Click to expand...

Good shit stirring nazi girl
It's like a pimple on republican wars of choice
 
anatta said:
the text of Comey's speech is just coming thru - "evidence of potential violations" still says it's not prosecutable.
I see what's going on:years ago.
The Comey Report ( sic) is gonna lay into her - but still recommends no prosecution, and then says this wasn't politically influenced.
There were classified markings according to Comey. *beats me*
Click to expand...

I think we all saw this coming
 
cawacko said:
Facts? As if you're any less defensive or protective of her misdeeds than those who accuse her of doing everything wrong?

If you're goal is to have the first (liberal) woman President everything else be dammed then I can actually respect that because at least you're being honest.

But claiming the Clinton's are somehow on the up and up requires a suspension of reality.
Click to expand...

Claiming they are worse than average is partisan junk
 
Rana said:
No politician is on the up and up, I just don't believe the Clintons are more corrupt than the Bushs, Romney, Newt or any of the rest, this is the point I was trying to make.
Click to expand...

odd how you say that. do you believe that they are LESS corrupt than those you listed?
 
anatta said:
it looks like there needs to be "vast quantities" of gross mishandling of classified materials ( what is the definition of vast quantities?)
OR
"Clear and intentional willful mishandling"- which goes to her intent; and her intent isn't clearly to mishandle.
It sure looks like intent especially with her words about not letting her emails be seen ( FOIA)

It looks to me like if you parse out every single point - by itself - it's not enough to indict.
But if you present a case en toto ( as a prosecutor would) there is intent..
But Comey is also citing precedence - and the precedence is not there??
Click to expand...

If you're not interested in an indictment you'll find a way lol?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top