She had classified information on a personal, non classified server. Which is illegal. There is no reason to re visit this. It’s already been established by the investigation.
I am not going to go through all those reports again just for you. Suffice it that the report declined to indict based on this being a case no reasonable prosecutor would bring and not based on no law being broken.
Now gross negligence also qualified as a crime. Remember how Strzok changed Comeys descrption from gross neglicence to something like carelessness, so it wouldn’t fit the terminology of the relevant statutes?
We have been over this, which is why I think it’s hilarious that you guys are still barking up this tree.
Do you know why “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring the case?
I do.
Actually, “gross negligence” does not constitute a crime - because the Supreme Court ruled (back in 1941) that criminal violations of the Espionage Act (that law you’re trying to cite) require scienter, otherwise they would run afoul of the First Amendment.
See Gorin v. United States.
That’s an opinion. Comey has no authority to speak for anyone other than himself. No reasonable liberal prosecutor would take the case. Many reasonable conservative ones would have.
It’s not an “opinion”. It’s a Constitutional issue.
But we find no uncertainty in this statute which deprives a person of the ability to predetermine whether a contemplated action is criminal under the provisions of this law. . . . This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith. The sanctions apply only when scienter is established.
Do you understand what that means?
Here’s another interesting fact:
No one has ever been prosecuted under the Espionage Act without intent being proven.
It’s an online poll, man; and it doesn’t mater what you’ve “been assured,” blah blah blah.
These clowns are breaking the law at every turn.
https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1115633037822316544?s=21
Another addition to the list of corruption and scandal that makes this administration the most corrupt in modern history.
1 Like
From the article, Mnuchin’s testimony:
“I am sure there are many prominent Democrats who are relieved that when Kevin Brady (of Texas) was chairman of the committee he didn’t request specific returns,” Mnuchin said.
Of course, Secretary Mnuchin - or should we just call you Secretary Dumbass? - the Democratic president released his tax returns to the public, both before and after elections, so there’s that.
2 Likes
I have what I believe is a fair proposal.
Release all 546 tax returns…Or release None. Show us Nancy’s and Mitches, and Aunti Maxines. Or none. Selective exploitation of the tax system for political gains is garbage.
Some are going to ask where I got 546 from. 435 Congress, 100 Senators, President, VP, and all 9 members of the SC.
If those 546 people want to willingly violate the rights of one citizen, let them lose their own rights as well.
The convention is to place the family business in a blind trust so there is no possibility of a conflict of interest - not to “turn control of the company over to other family members” 
Then again, he’s just a rebel, right? Flouting convention and gettin’ all mavericky in the swamp. Has nothing to do with tying decisions to his business.
https://www.dcreport.org/2019/04/09/why-trump-wants-the-mueller-report-and-his-taxes-kept-secret/[quote=“Vigilante, post:449, topic:172770, full:true”]
His Tax Refunds have everything to do with financial obligations and those who curry favor with him. Its the public’s right to know whose pocket the President is in.
[/quote]
And that pocket would be Felix Sater, King of money launderers. Trump a money laundering prince worked for Deutsche Bank, the only bank that would loan hom any money.
That just makes too much sense to actually be done.
Do you understand that I don’t take tests from fellow board members? You should. I’ve mentioned it several times before. 
So, I’ll take that as a “no”.
Feel free to read my posts, and be educated.
The dems could get a win on this if they actually put legislation forward. But I dont think they have the guts. Let them put forward legislation that says all 546 returns from all members of Congress, the Senate, the President and the Vice President, along with the members of the Supreme Court are to be made Public Record and subject to release under the Freedom of Information Act with only their individual Social Security Numbers redacted. This would apply to all going forward.
Nancy should be able to pass that law. Take a vote and send it to Mitch. If Mitch didnt put it up for vote, the dems could potentially take over the Senate on this one issue. Dare the President to veto it or the Court to strike it down.
Think how nice it would be after every April 15th of every year if there were published articles showing how well are representatives are doing financially.
I dare Nancy to send that bill forward. You guys that are in Cortez’s good graces…Ask her to submit the legislation. You know the fine congress woman from queens will do it. Put her up to it. I would, but Im a conservative and she wont listen to me. But to you guys she might.
2 Likes
That’s incorrect. The FBI interviewed someone paid by Judicial Watch, with the help of Newt Gingrich, who claimed to have found this file. It does not say any actual evidence was produced.
You’re really blowing me away here.
Well then I did something good today. 
