Hillary's Campaign Kickoff

[Observer]

Interesting to review the statutes in the context of a criminal investigation.

 

Statute 1: 18 U.S.C.A. § 1924(a)

 

“Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both. “

 

 

Here none of the documents were actually classified when she used the server. Even if they were later deemed classified, she had no knowledge of their classified designation when removed.

 

Statute 2: 18 U.S.C.A § 793(f)

 

“Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

 

 

This is the espionage statute. It requires--as interpreted by the Supreme Court--intent to harm the US:

 

The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation. This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith.

 

 

Comey hit the right target, and carefully worded his statement. What Hillary did was wrong, reckless, and probably would get anyone in that position fired or sanctioned. But it was not criminal at least according to the FBI. And that's the only thing he could say given the statutes he had to work with.

 

Now, I'm not sure why she wouldn't be charged with obstruction or some other crime based on her complete dishonesty in the investigation but that's not the question Comey could answer. That's something for the AG to decide.

[DC Tom]

That doesn't address some of the beefs the same sex marriage crowd has such as spousal SS benefits which is a big one for that group. On that basis I think it should be addressed federally. I agree though that states' rights are very important and have unfortunately been eroded over time.

 

It is addressed federally: if you can provide a valid marriage certificate, you're married. Period. End of story. If the IRS questions whether or not my wife and I are married, we show them the marriage certificate from the state in which we were married. The federal government has always deferred to the states in the definition of marriage, and always accepted differing state definitions and qualifications of marriage (and still do in many circumstances.)

 

I still wish some state governor had had the guts to stand up and say in response to the Supreme Court "Effective immediately, we are no longer issuing marriage certificates in this state. If the federal government wants to define marriage, the federal government can issue the marriage certificates."

 

I find both to be distasteful and dishonest. But Hillary likely lines up with my social stances more closely.

 

She likely lines up with mine more closely, too. At least half the time, depending on which side of her mouth she's talking out of.

 

Simple fact is, I'll never forgive the Clintons for Rwanda and Afghanistan. And don't tell me "That was Bill," not after Hillary's "WE are the President" bull ****.

[Doc]

You're doing just what we complain about LA, you're only giving a portion, to try and influence the whole.

 

 

“Saddam Hussein was a bad guy. Right? He was a bad guy, really bad guy. But you know what he did well? He killed terrorists. He did that so good. They didn’t read them the rights — they didn’t talk, they were a terrorist, it was over,” Trump said as many in his audience of about 2,000 laughed on Tuesday evening. “Today, Iraq is Harvard for terrorism. You want to be a terrorist, you go to Iraq. It’s like Harvard. Okay? So sad.”

 

 

Trump’s insistence that Hussein should have remained in power, to “kill terrorists,” is actually one of his most consistent lines. It clashes completely with the Washington consensus, but taps into voter anger at how the Iraq War, sold as a quick-and-easy crusade against evil, destabilized the Middle East and allowed groups like ISIS to form and grow.

 

Trump began saying this at his campaign rallies last summer.

 

Now................the day of Hillary/Comey..............it's all of a sudden picked up by the media as new .

 

Shocker: Media suddenly fascinated by foolish, months-old Trump trope on Saddam

 

Nowhere in there do I see that he praised Hussein for anything other than killing terrorists. As if that's a bad thing. Again, blame the spin.

 

This has nothing to do with spin and everything to do with strategy.

 

Think of the old adage "If you're explaining, you're losing." He's constantly having to explain stupid stuff. I don't care if the point he is trying to make is right or wrong...if it's presented in a way that is undisciplined and forces him to spend more time explaining his comment than explaining his point, he's losing. Throw in a media begging for any stupid thing, and you're screwed.

 

They're unforced errors, against the weakest Dem candidate in years. And he's getting his ass handed to him because his brand is, intentionally, "Look at me while I say politically incorrect (i.e. stupid) stuff."

 

That works for a TV show. It does not work for a presidential candidate, which is why he is getting his ass kicked in every poll in the free world.

I get what you're saying, especially with Trump, but this was going to happen with any candidate. Mitt Romney had to explain college pranks and Hillary goes unquestioned when she lies to the faces of the parents of fallen heroes. It's just the way it works whether Trump is the nominee or not. If George Washington were running against her, he's have hell to pay for the environmental havoc he caused by chopping down that cherry tree.

 

This.

 

Interesting to review the statutes in the context of a criminal investigation.

 

Statute 1: 18 U.S.C.A. § 1924(a)

 

Here none of the documents were actually classified when she used the server. Even if they were later deemed classified, she had no knowledge of their classified designation when removed.

 

Statute 2: 18 U.S.C.A § 793(f)

 

This is the espionage statute. It requires--as interpreted by the Supreme Court--intent to harm the US:

 

 

Comey hit the right target, and carefully worded his statement. What Hillary did was wrong, reckless, and probably would get anyone in that position fired or sanctioned. But it was not criminal at least according to the FBI. And that's the only thing he could say given the statutes he had to work with.

 

Now, I'm not sure why she wouldn't be charged with obstruction or some other crime based on her complete dishonesty in the investigation but that's not the question Comey could answer. That's something for the AG to decide.

 

She should have her security clearance revoked. Which would make her unfit to be president.

[IDBillzFan]

 

 

I get what you're saying, especially with Trump, but this was going to happen with any candidate. Mitt Romney had to explain college pranks and Hillary goes unquestioned when she lies to the faces of the parents of fallen heroes. It's just the way it works whether Trump is the nominee or not. If George Washington were running against her, he'd have hell to pay for the environmental havoc he caused by chopping down that cherry tree.

 

I understand that. What I'm arguing is that at least a person who was in it to win would be better at, pretty much, anything that Trump is or isn't doing. Romney gets his balls busted for a college prank or his wife owning a horse. Trump gets that PLUS he says stupid schitt all the time, so there never seems to a period where he is winning anything...not a week, not a day, not a news cycle (whatever that is).

 

He loses every single time he opens his mouth, and there will come a time when people will want some substance, and Trump has absolutely no substance to anything he says or does.

 

He's conning people because he neither has the desire to win nor cares about anything other than the Trump brand. His fans cheer him because they think it's a game show. And November will be an absolutely bloodbath for the GOP.

Edited July 6, 2016 by LABillzFan

[4merper4mer]

 

 

This is the espionage statute. It requires--as interpreted by the Supreme Court--intent to harm the US:

 

 

“Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

 

 

When did SCOTUS interpret the requirement of intent or do you just love Hillary again? The term gross negligence ======= "extremely careless" which are the exact words Comey used. Please tell me how you think they are different.

 

 

You:

Here none of the documents were actually classified when she used the server. Even if they were later deemed classified, she had no knowledge of their classified designation when removed.

 

 

 

Lap Dog POS Comey:

 

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification.

 

 

Huh?

[4merper4mer]

 

I understand that. What I'm arguing is that at least a person who was in it to win would be better at, pretty much, anything that Trump is or isn't doing. Romney gets his balls busted for a college prank or his wife owning a horse. Trump gets that PLUS he says stupid schitt all the time, so there never seems to a period where he is winning anything...not a week, not a day, not a news cycle (whatever that is).

 

He loses every single time he opens his mouth, and there will come a time when people will want some substance, and Trump has absolutely no substance to anything he says or does.

 

He's conning people because he neither has the desire to win nor cares about anything other than the Trump brand. His fans cheer him because they think it's a game show. And November will be an absolutely bloodbath for the GOP.

 

 

I get it but I don't think it makes a difference. The R's could put up Jesus Christ and the press and Hillary would get to the same end result. It might take longer. That's why I'm at a point that I don't really care about what Trump says because the whole thing is a farce with or without him.

 

The bloodbath for the GOP, if it happens, won't be helpful to the country but the R's can't say they don't deserve it. They tried to force Jeb Bush down our throats and when that didn't work they tried Lazio then Kasich. This on top of years of Paul Ryan/Mitch McConnell/John Boehner. How is that crap any better?

 

What can we say really? People over the age of say 35 had a good run living here when we did. We won the lottery by being born where we were and when we were. It is the younger people that are really hosed now that the totalitarian express has left the station and there is not really a way out for at least a few generations. These commies have the whole thing locked down at this point with or without Trump. Her actions and the inaction of law enforcement/press/electorate tells you all you need to know.

[Doc]

I understand that. What I'm arguing is that at least a person who was in it to win would be better at, pretty much, anything that Trump is or isn't doing. Romney gets his balls busted for a college prank or his wife owning a horse. Trump gets that PLUS he says stupid schitt all the time, so there never seems to a period where he is winning anything...not a week, not a day, not a news cycle (whatever that is).

 

He loses every single time he opens his mouth, and there will come a time when people will want some substance, and Trump has absolutely no substance to anything he says or does.

 

He's conning people because he neither has the desire to win nor cares about anything other than the Trump brand. His fans cheer him because they think it's a game show. And November will be an absolutely bloodbath for the GOP.

 

We'll agree to disagree, but I don't know how you think he's not in this to win it. He's in everything to win it. Sure he's trying to hawk some wares along the way, just like any good businessman would do, but I have no doubt he wants to win. And he's going after HiLIARy harder than I've ever seen anyone do to another opponent before. And if HiLIARy is in on it, she's doing a great job of acting like she isn't.

[reddogblitz]

Like I said above, it's the spin that's the problem, not what he said (at least in this instance). He praised Saddam for killing terrorists and keeping the region stabilized. How else was he supposed to say it?

And now that he's gone it's a haven for terrorists (thank you Hillary and your partners in war crime). Theres a war against terrorists going on there right now. That was the point. It's Harvard (where one gets an education) for terrorists. And he prefaced it by saying SH was an a$$hole.

 

It's been played up by the media and Dems (and LA) to mean something else.

 

Trump was right about this.

Edited July 6, 2016 by reddogblitz

[IDBillzFan]

It's been played up by the media and Dems (and LA) to mean something else.

 

I wasn't playing it up to be something else. I understood what he was saying. What I'm arguing about is THE NEED TO BRING IT UP THE WAY HE DID.

 

In what political world does it make sense to start a sentence with "But you know what Saddam Hussein did well?"

 

Nothing. He didn't do anything well, you stupid phuck. Stop talking about what Saddam Hussein does well because...and here's the point as slowly as I can make it for you...NO ONE IN THE MEDIA IS LISTENING TO WHAT COMES NEXT.

 

After seven years of making fun of Barack Obama for saying moronic crap off teleprompter, are we now going to try and defend Trump for the moronic crap he says off teleprompter? Are we going to defend his executive orders, as well? Laud him for having a pen and phone?

 

This monkeyschitt is playing you all, and in November you're all going to be standing around with green slime like you just lost a Nickelodeon contest.

 

Demand better. Stop compromising.

[Nanker]

 

Note to self: Juror #8 holds his liquor like John Wawrow.

 

Caption the photo:

 

Look Ma, no morals!

[DC Tom]

And now that he's gone it's a haven for terrorists (thank you Hillary and your partners in war crime). Theres a war against terrorists going on there right now. That was the point. It's Harvard (where one gets an education) for terrorists. And he prefaced it by saying SH was an !@#$.

 

It's been played up by the media and Dems (and LA) to mean something else.

 

Trump was right about this.

 

And we just watched a statement by the FBI director who didn't recommend indictment...then went ahead and in his statement indicted her on every single accusation brought against her. And people are saying Hillary's been vindicated, because he "didn't recommend indictment."

 

No one ever listens to the context. They listen to the sound byte.

[Doc]

And now that he's gone it's a haven for terrorists (thank you Hillary and your partners in war crime). Theres a war against terrorists going on there right now. That was the point. It's Harvard (where one gets an education) for terrorists. And he prefaced it by saying SH was an !@#$.

 

It's been played up by the media and Dems (and LA) to mean something else.

 

Trump was right about this.

 

Even CNN is admitting this: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/06/opinions/trump-comments-on-saddam-opinion-bergen/index.html

[keepthefaith]

 

 

We won the lottery by being born where we were and when we were. It is the younger people that are really hosed now that the totalitarian express has left the station and there is not really a way out for at least a few generations. These commies have the whole thing locked down at this point with or without Trump. Her actions and the inaction of law enforcement/press/electorate tells you all you need to know.

Yes, the younger people are hosed and for the most part don't know it. It's the boomer generation of pols and voters that have for the most part left a stinking steaming pile of **** for the next generations but again the younger crowd mostly don't have a clue. They should be royally pissed at my generation.

[B-Man]

Attorney General Lynch officially closes investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server

 

 

Let's keep the comedy going with

 

Mid week Hillary cartoons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 7, 2016 by B-Man

[Doc]

[reddogblitz]

Nothing. He didn't do anything well, you stupid phuck. Stop talking about what Saddam Hussein does well because...and here's the point as slowly as I can make it for you...NO ONE IN THE MEDIA IS LISTENING TO WHAT COMES NEXT.

 

Yes, we have now reached the silly part of the presidential election. The part where both candidates are picked and have been running for almost a year. We know all about them, where they stand, and what they say they want to do. Media needs to cover something, so they take some innocuous comment or event and and blow it out of proportion making it a BIG STORY for 2 or 3 days.

 

Sort of like when Dukakis rode in a tank with an Army helmet on, or we found out Romney once tied a dog on his car, or candidate doesn't know what the capital of Karjskistan is.

 

It'll be like this for the next 3 or 4 months.

 

After seven years of making fun of Barack Obama for saying moronic crap off teleprompter, are we now going to try and defend Trump for the moronic crap he says off teleprompter? Are we going to defend his executive orders, as well? Laud him for having a pen and phone?

 

I'm not trying defend to Trump. He was right. I wish people would think for themselves instead of believing everything Don Lemon or Rachel Maddow or Sean Hannity tell them. Edited July 7, 2016 by reddogblitz

[Keukasmallies]

 

And we just watched a statement by the FBI director who didn't recommend indictment...then went ahead and in his statement indicted her on every single accusation brought against her. And people are saying Hillary's been vindicated, because he "didn't recommend indictment."

 

No one ever listens to the context. They listen to the sound byte.

 

This....

[B-Man]

Hillary Clinton has not held a press conference since December 4th, when she answered 7 questions.

 

 

Is she thinking: f I speak, I will sound guarded, phony, stilted, and evasive, so it won't even work, so why take the risk?

Meanwhile, Trump is garrulous and convivial — the opposite extreme. I see he's getting criticized for continuing to talk about the shape of a star in an image he tweeted. The theory is supposedly that he should shut up about that and proceed to a new topic-of-the-day. As if the star would be forgotten by his opponents! It will forever be on a list of evidence that will be thrown out as proof that he's a bigot. But he's advised to stop defending himself.

[GG]

And now that he's gone it's a haven for terrorists (thank you Hillary and your partners in war crime). Theres a war against terrorists going on there right now. That was the point. It's Harvard (where one gets an education) for terrorists. And he prefaced it by saying SH was an !@#$.

 

It's been played up by the media and Dems (and LA) to mean something else.

 

Trump was right about this.

Except he's not right.

 

Saddham did not kill terrorists whose mission was aligned against the West. He funded a lot off her or groups.

 

If anything, he provided a safe heaven to militant groups who were his bulwark against the restjve Kurds in the Northwest.

[B-Man]

At today's 'hearing'

 

Congress To Ask FBI To Investigate Hillary For Lying Under Oath [VIDEO]

 

During tense questioning, the chair of the House Oversight Committee asked Comey, “Did Hillary Clinton lie?”

“To the FBI,” Comey replied, “We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI.

”“Did she lie to the public?” Chaffetz asked.

“That’s a question I’m not qualified to answer. I can speak about what she said to the FBI,” Comey replied.

“Did Hillary Clinton lie under oath?” Chaffetz followed up. “

Not to the FBI,” Comey said. “Not in a case we’re working.”

Then referring to Clinton’s sworn testimony before the House Benghazi Committee from October 2015, Chaffetz asked, “Did you review the documents where Congressman Jim Jordan asked her specifically and she said, quote, ‘There was nothing marked classified on my e-mails, either sent or received,’ end quote?”

 

“I don’t remember reviewing that particular testimony,” Comey replied. “I’m aware of that being said, though.”

 

“Did the FBI investigate her statements under oath on this topic?” Chaffetz asked.

 

“Not to my knowledge. I don’t think there has been a referral from Congress,” Comey replied.

 

“Do you need a referral from Congress to investigate her statements under oath?” Chaffetz followed up.

 

“Sure do,” Comey answered.

 

“You’ll have one. You’ll have one in the next few hours,” Chaffetz said.

 

 

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/07/congress-to-ask-fbi-to-investigate-hillary-for-lying-under-oath-video/#ixzz4DjpkoEhB

.

Edited July 7, 2016 by B-Man