Hillary was never indicted for anything, pinhead.
For those who think Trump has committed crimes and should be locked up.
- Thread starter Underdog
- Start date
Hillary was never indicted for anything, pinhead.
So you can't link to the court finding of "innocence" as you claim?
Concession accepted.
It's not trump who could shoot someone on 5th ave, it's hillary who can get our operatives and ambasadors killed and you will all simply ask "what difference does it make"....
So when did I argue otherwise? Your girl hillary did just this, thanks for admitting she committed a felony.
Just out of curiosity, do you even have a basic clue as to how many different levels of clearances there are, and how many different forms of "classified" there are?
Yes, I do.
That does not make one "innocent". Is OJ "innocent" of murder?
and by your logic, neither was your nemesis trump, idiot.
You are irrational .. OJ was indicted and tried in a court of law.. Hillary was NEVER charged.
Why not?
Could you have a private server with classified information on it and not be charged?
Old Trapper
Verified User
Now all you have to do is prove it. Then get your repugnant counterparts to charge her.
Old Trapper
Verified User
Doesn't matter. Your party had the power to indict, and didn't. Take your whining to them.
Didn't I just read something about Ivanka using a private server? You going to whine about her not being indicted?
Take your ball and go home. You do that in court and you lose. That is what I keep telling you. You haven't proven your case to anyone other than yourself.
When questioned you simply accuse me of arrogance rather than tightening your argument. You have nothing that would stand up to cross examination in court. You have nothing that would convince a judge or a jury of guilt because there are so many other reasonable explanations that would require an acquittal.
It is not a felony to unknowingly have classified material on a personal server.
You don't get to ignore the words in the law.
In order to violate this law someone has to be an (a)employee, etc, who (b) becomes possessed of classified material and then has to (c) knowingly remove the documents (d) with the intent to retain them at an unauthorized location.
There are 4 requirements that need to be met to violate this law.
So..
(a) Hillary was an employee - check
(b) The emails contained classified material - check At a date later than receiving them, the emails were determined to be classified material -
(c) She had to knowingly remove them from somewhere. - How can someone that receives an email knowingly remove anything? How can they be knowingly removed if they aren't yet determined to be classified? - Can't be shown to have occurred.
(d) Since you can't prove she knew they were classified, you can't show any intent. They were determined to be classified at a later date. - Also can't be proven.
So you have only met 2 of the 4 requirements which means you can't prove a felony.
A judge would throw this out of court before it even went to the jury if there wasn't a summary judgement before the case even started.
Last edited:
Except you can't do what you claim you can do. You run away from the actual law and the actual facts.
You can't prove Hillary knew any emails were classified which is required for it to become a felony under the laws you presented. In fact, she stated publicly that none of them were which would have been her perception.
You provided evidence of how a document should be properly classified.
You have admitted that the emails didn't contain most of the requirements for classifications.
The one classification mark used is so ubiquitous that it is found in the very laws you link to. No reasonable person seeing (c) out of context would consider it designates classified material.
No judge or jury would buy your argument no matter how much you want to believe it is a strong argument. The law doesn't make it a felony if she should have known. It only makes it a felony if she knew. When something is not properly classified, it makes your case impossible to prove.
Insufficient evidence.
Don't you know how that works?
Excepts from Flynn's sentencing hearing about treason.
https://johnib.wordpress.com/2018/1...n-sentencing-sentencing-unexpectedly-delayed/
This thread is so Trumpian typical. It is about whether Trump will be charged and punished for his myriad of lies and crimes. So Rev starts making it about Hillary. Let's forget Trump and talk about her, over, and over and over,. It worked for Daffy and his folowers use the same fundamentally dishonest technique. Hillary was badly mistreated by the reds. They investigated over and over to poison the well and make those who could not see what they were doing, to distrust her. But that has nothing to do with Trump. Trump ,unlike Hillary, is a crook. he has proudly cheated and lied his whole life. But lots more is coming out and the Dems will have the investigative power of the house to use on him.
From his fake charity he used as a slush fund, to the fact he actually signed a deal to build in Moscow, it is coming out. Trump will have a lot to answer for. Hillary testified under oath to the committees. Let's see if Trump will do the same.
He won't.
From his fake charity he used as a slush fund, to the fact he actually signed a deal to build in Moscow, it is coming out. Trump will have a lot to answer for. Hillary testified under oath to the committees. Let's see if Trump will do the same.
He won't.