APP - The new spin on Hillary's email scandal

C

canceled.2021.1

#AMERICAISDEAD
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/05/...ed-to-break-the-law-in-hillary-clintons-case/

Now they are claiming that she did not have "malicious intent". Isn't that special? She didn't "mean to". She broke the law, but she didn't do it on purpose. I always thought that ignorance of the law was never an excuse? Of course she did sign a document that she understood how to handle top secret data.

I guess soon they will tell us she "accidentally" put in a private server.

This woman has been serving up lie after lie for years and I can't believe that there are those that are gullible enough to fall for it. Well, maybe I can believe it.
 
mens rea only applies to the government and it's officials/agents. if there was no malicious or willful intent, then no crime. us mere citizens, however, must be nailed to the cross whether we meant to commit a crime or not.
 
This is about the prohibition against ex post facto laws.

From what I understand, the emails contain information that was LATER classified. You cant change the status of the emails, then go back and say.. you mishandled information that was later classified, and then prosecute the person for sending information that was later classified.

This works for the common man as well as HRC. You fools are always barking up the wrong trees, it hurts you case when you use false outrage over angle after angel in an effort to get something on someone.
 
Jarod said:
This is about the prohibition against ex post facto laws.

From what I understand, the emails contain information that was LATER classified. You cant change the status of the emails, then go back and say.. you mishandled information that was later classified, and then prosecute the person for sending information that was later classified.

This works for the common man as well as HRC. You fools are always barking up the wrong trees, it hurts you case when you use false outrage over angle after angel in an effort to get something on someone.
Click to expand...

I would suggest you go back and read the law as it pertains to classified information.

First of all had she ONLY used her private server for Chelsea's wedding gowns, nobody would say boo, or if they did they would have no leg to stand on. The fact that she even used it for public business should raise concerns from every American who cares about national security.

It matters not how it was classified at the time. That is a falsehood spread to try to defend her indefensible actions
 
I Love America said:
I would suggest you go back and read the law as it pertains to classified information.

First of all had she ONLY used her private server for Chelsea's wedding gowns, nobody would say boo, or if they did they would have no leg to stand on. The fact that she even used it for public business should raise concerns from every American who cares about national security.

It matters not how it was classified at the time. That is a falsehood spread to try to defend her indefensible actions
Click to expand...

I agree it should raise concerns, I simply am pointing out it was not a crime.
 
If the intent was to skirt the law regarding government communication (and it was), she is in violation.
That Gucifer hacked her (foreign national) demonstrates reckless mismanagement.
If the information was of a sensation nature that's as criminal for her as it is seen to be for our NSA boy.
 
Jarod said:
I agree it should raise concerns, I simply am pointing out it was not a crime.
Click to expand...

Why did she put in a private server? We aren't talking about a private email account like AOL. She put in a private server which meant she had total control over what was deleted and what wasn't. That was intentional.

I suggest you read the law on classified information and then you will better informed on the topic next time we discuss it.
 
I Love America said:
Why did she put in a private server? We aren't talking about a private email account like AOL. She put in a private server which meant she had total control over what was deleted and what wasn't. That was intentional.

I suggest you read the law on classified information and then you will better informed on the topic next time we discuss it.
Click to expand...

She put it on a private server so she could have total control over it, silly.

It was an arrogant thing to do, to think she was above the rules and regulations of her agency and should be exempt from public disclosure. She did it because she is always on defense as she is one of the most investigated women ever.

I know the law fairly well and am willing to discuss it. Despite what the law says, a crime cannot be ex post facto.
 
Jarod said:
She put it on a private server so she could have total control over it, silly.

It was an arrogant thing to do, to think she was above the rules and regulations of her agency and should be exempt from public disclosure. She did it because she is always on defense as she is one of the most investigated women ever.

I know the law fairly well and am willing to discuss it. Despite what the law says, a crime cannot be ex post facto.
Click to expand...

To spend money to circumvent the law is intent.
Transparency is the antidote for nosiness.
 
I Love America said:
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/05/...ed-to-break-the-law-in-hillary-clintons-case/

Now they are claiming that she did not have "malicious intent". Isn't that special? She didn't "mean to". She broke the law, but she didn't do it on purpose. I always thought that ignorance of the law was never an excuse? Of course she did sign a document that she understood how to handle top secret data.

I guess soon they will tell us she "accidentally" put in a private server.

This woman has been serving up lie after lie for years and I can't believe that there are those that are gullible enough to fall for it. Well, maybe I can believe it.
Click to expand...

if they are spreading this line it may be that someone in the FBI has leaked that an indictment is on the way......otherwise they would keep their mouths shut and let it ride.......they're obviously trying to pave the way for a defense.......that means they think they need one.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
if they are spreading this line it may be that someone in the FBI has leaked that an indictment is on the way......otherwise they would keep their mouths shut and let it ride.......they're obviously trying to pave the way for a defense.......that means they think they need one.......
Click to expand...

That is an interesting analysis. I didn't think of that. Nothing with the Clinton's is ever a coincidence. Only a true partisan hack believes she didn't violate the law. That said, I think it doubtful she is ever prosecuted. But, I hope I am wrong.

You know if she is, there are those who will claim it was the white man keeping down a strong woman. They will never believe she make Nixon look like a choir boy
 
I Love America said:
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/05/...ed-to-break-the-law-in-hillary-clintons-case/

Now they are claiming that she did not have "malicious intent". Isn't that special? She didn't "mean to". She broke the law, but she didn't do it on purpose. I always thought that ignorance of the law was never an excuse? Of course she did sign a document that she understood how to handle top secret data.

I guess soon they will tell us she "accidentally" put in a private server.

This woman has been serving up lie after lie for years and I can't believe that there are those that are gullible enough to fall for it. Well, maybe I can believe it.
Click to expand...
And you guys keep inventing nonsense out of whole cloth trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill with a complete disregard for the tax payers money that's being wasted on something that everyone and their brother knows is a partisan political attack with no merit or an indictment would have been served a long time ago.

The only thing of signicance to be noted here is how GOP partisan will cavalierly waste the tax payers money to play partisan politics.

If anyone should be indicted it's these clowns.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
And you guys keep inventing nonsense out of whole cloth trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill with a complete disregard for the tax payers money that's being wasted on something that everyone and their brother knows is a partisan political attack with no merit or an indictment would have been served a long time ago.

The only thing of signicance to be noted here is how GOP partisan will cavalierly waste the tax payers money to play partisan politics.

If anyone should be indicted it's these clowns.
Click to expand...

So it is your contention that the GOP is wielding power over Obamas department of justice?

That is new
 
Mott the Hoople said:
And you guys keep inventing nonsense out of whole cloth trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill with a complete disregard for the tax payers money that's being wasted on something that everyone and their brother knows is a partisan political attack with no merit or an indictment would have been served a long time ago.

The only thing of signicance to be noted here is how GOP partisan will cavalierly waste the tax payers money to play partisan politics.

If anyone should be indicted it's these clowns.
Click to expand...

This is nothing new when it comes to the Clintons, the Republicans have been doing this since the 90's, they did it for 8 years regarding "whitewater" and they are doing it with "Benghazi" and now they are doing it with the emails. Anything that goes bad with the Clintons name on it becomes a multi-billion dollar tax payer funded investigation that ultimately turns into nothing but smears, rumor and innuendo to be used in Republican campaigns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top