Is this like one of those puzzles where you have to find all the faces hidden in the picture?
Yes, we must investigate the Clintons some more. After 30 years of investingations, this will be the one…
You know, honestly, I figured this whole Russian thing to be an electoral ploy-minus Paul Manafort, who stage managed the Kremlin’s president of Ukraine-until Sessions was forced to recuse himself after blurting out apropos of nothing at his confirmation hearing that he didn’t but have any contact with Russians. Which turned out to be a lie.
So you end up with Flynn, Manafort, Gates, Sessions, Cohen, Eric and Don Jr., Kushner and I can’t even remember all of them all with at least tangential connections to the Russians and in some cases insanely detailed connections. On top of that, Trump goes out of his way to talk about how fantastic Russia is constantly.
Doesn’t seem like no evidence.
2 Likes
so what do you think about the Trump foundation deal that occurred today?
I do too. I say no politician is above being investigated to find out if they are a crook or not.
Investigate Clinton. Investigate Obama. Investigate Trump. We’ll see who is corrupt.
Which espionage law was that?
In other words, the DNC hack. Not to mention the publication by Wikileaks, which made them public.
She won’t be going on trial. She didn’t break any laws.
Yes, but you have certainly seen those on this forum that still insist there is none.
Don’t need an investigation on the laws that Hillery is known to have violated. We just need a prosecutor with the balls to put her before a court.
Sorry sport, Comey laid out all the laws she violated then gave prosecution of her a pass, citing a condition that actually does not exist, " intent ".
Noooo, not the DNC hack. Please try to keep up.
Thank goodness you’re here to tell us that literally half of the requirement for a conviction, criminal intent, doesn’t actually exist.
There are only like a half a dozen countries in the world that make the differentiation between criminal act and criminal intent but we’re one of them.
Criminal intent is not a required element under the Espionage acts. Gross negligence is grounds for conviction.
Read the statute. Intent is right there in your native language.
My goodness, still whining about Hillary? She lost, get over it.
And again, criminal intent is not a required element under the statute.
(c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter; or
(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
(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.(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.
When it comes to intent however.
She also refused to comply with subpoenas for her emails.
She also then had her staff wipe the hard drives and destroy the devices while her emails were under subpoena.
Then your messiah failed on his hiring. That’s on Trump!
Why isn’t Trump’s Attorney General - you know they guy he appointed - prosecuting her?
The espionage act explicitly requires intent.
