Posts: 9176
Threads: 76
Joined: November 21, 2013
Reputation:
40
RE: Poor Elizabeth Warren.
June 2, 2016 at 12:08 pm
An indictment is what should happen. And if it was Bernie being investigated, I'm sure the Hillary crowd would be yelling for an indictment too. But this country is corrupt enough that just because someone does something blatantly criminal, it doesn't mean they'll get in trouble for it. Especially if they have power.
Posts: 1765
Threads: 225
Joined: February 18, 2015
Reputation:
16
RE: Poor Elizabeth Warren.
June 2, 2016 at 12:43 pm
That's very presumptuous. Did these law experts give their opinion before or after the State Department report? I think that's crucial. Are you saying it's acceptable to have Special Access Program information on a private server in a basement and siphon goverment e-mails from a secure government network to your own personal server?
Posts: 69247
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: Poor Elizabeth Warren.
June 2, 2016 at 1:00 pm
No. It is not presumptuous when someone who knows what they are talking about speaks.
You should try it sometime.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/02/us/pol....html?_r=0
Quote:William Weld, the vice-presidential nominee for the Libertarian Party, said Wednesday that he believed Hillary Clinton had done nothing “criminal” in using personal email as secretary of state.
Quote:He was equally succinct when asked if her use of a private email server, now the subject of an F.B.I. investigation, was a legitimate issue.
“No,” said Mr. Weld, a former prosecutor, adding that he had read of no evidence that would clear the bar for criminality. “I think it’s a nonstarter.”
You have five more days to jerk off to your wet dream.
Posts: 8731
Threads: 425
Joined: October 7, 2014
Reputation:
37
RE: Poor Elizabeth Warren.
June 2, 2016 at 1:26 pm
(June 2, 2016 at 1:00 pm)Minimalist Wrote: No. It is not presumptuous when someone who knows what they are talking about speaks.
You should try it sometime.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/02/us/pol....html?_r=0
Quote:William Weld, the vice-presidential nominee for the Libertarian Party, said Wednesday that he believed Hillary Clinton had done nothing “criminal” in using personal email as secretary of state.
Quote:He was equally succinct when asked if her use of a private email server, now the subject of an F.B.I. investigation, was a legitimate issue.
“No,” said Mr. Weld, a former prosecutor, adding that he had read of no evidence that would clear the bar for criminality. “I think it’s a nonstarter.”
You have five more days to jerk off to your wet dream.
Min there is a big difference she can get charged with Espionage because of said sensitive data and its already to late for her to stay in the race
half of the voters in the US believed she broke the law with that private server.
http://www.ibtimes.com/hillary-clinton-e...al-2376607
Then you have the Inspectors Generals report refuting all of Hillary's defenses for using said server.
http://reason.com/archives/2016/06/02/hi...es-refuted
So lets go over what she did wrong here
Executive Order 13526 and 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f) Section 1236.22 FOIA
She broke all of those. The first two being broken is serious and can land you in federal prision.
The Second all records must be kept preserved apart of the federal record keeping. That being said she had classified information on said server to look back at the first. The Third thing her system was made to defy the FOIA (Freedom of information action) and all of this because she wanted to use her own personal email account..... simple as put she broke federal law enough said. I say this not because i am anti Hillary i am just stating the facts she broke the law enough said.
Atheism is a non-prophet organization join today.
Code: <iframe width="100%" height="450" scrolling="no" frameborder="no" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/255506953&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true"></iframe>
Posts: 1765
Threads: 225
Joined: February 18, 2015
Reputation:
16
RE: Poor Elizabeth Warren.
June 2, 2016 at 1:31 pm
Thank you, Dyresand. Why is it so hard for people to concede that Hilary broke laws? We know she broke laws; the State Department said so in their report.
Posts: 69247
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: Poor Elizabeth Warren.
June 2, 2016 at 1:33 pm
Dy?
Do you even read the stuff you post?
Quote:On Monday night, POLITICO reported, "A bill President Barack Obama signed last November declared that official messages sent on personal email accounts must be copied to an employee’s official account or forwarded to such an account within 20 days. The law, which was not retroactive, allowed employees to be subject to disciplinary action for failing to archive records but it did not carry criminal penalties."
November ( of 2014) is well past the date of Secretary Clinton's resignation but it is the last phrase that you do need to pay attention to.
There are no ex post facto laws permitted by the constitution.
I'd counsel you to stop arguing with lawyers.
Posts: 496
Threads: 18
Joined: January 17, 2013
Reputation:
16
RE: Poor Elizabeth Warren.
June 2, 2016 at 2:42 pm
(June 2, 2016 at 1:33 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Dy?
Do you even read the stuff you post?
Quote:On Monday night, POLITICO reported, "A bill President Barack Obama signed last November declared that official messages sent on personal email accounts must be copied to an employee’s official account or forwarded to such an account within 20 days. The law, which was not retroactive, allowed employees to be subject to disciplinary action for failing to archive records but it did not carry criminal penalties."
November ( of 2014) is well past the date of Secretary Clinton's resignation but it is the last phrase that you do need to pay attention to.
There are no ex post facto laws permitted by the constitution.
I'd counsel you to stop arguing with lawyers. You should follow your own advice.Many of them think Hillary broke the law. But you can hold on to the absurd idea that Hillary would be a good president.Or that she can be Trump even though the polls show her losing in Key swing states.
Lol Compromising with Congress?nope you got to hit them hard
ALL PRAISE THE ONE TRUE GOD ZALGO
Posts: 6843
Threads: 0
Joined: February 22, 2014
Reputation:
15
RE: Poor Elizabeth Warren.
June 2, 2016 at 3:02 pm
(June 2, 2016 at 2:42 pm)Mothonis Wrote: (June 2, 2016 at 1:33 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Dy?
Do you even read the stuff you post?
November ( of 2014) is well past the date of Secretary Clinton's resignation but it is the last phrase that you do need to pay attention to.
There are no ex post facto laws permitted by the constitution.
I'd counsel you to stop arguing with lawyers. You should follow your own advice.Many of them think Hillary broke the law. But you can hold on to the absurd idea that Hillary would be a good president.Or that she can be Trump even though the polls show her losing in Key swing states.
Lol Compromising with Congress?nope you got to hit them hard
Hillary doesn't need to win the swing States. They are nice to have but not necessary as long as she retains the Blue States.
Even if the twit isn't charged with a crime she's too stupid to be President. The email issue proves it. It will be a sad day in American history if she wins.
|
