Restating nonsense is not the same thing as showing why something is wrong.
Not if one does it a thousand times.
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. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were āup-classifiedā to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.
So itās not against the law to send classified and top secret information on a non secure server? Thatās interesting news.
Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond.
They found other e-mails she didnāt turn over and destroyed. Obstruction?
It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.
More obstruction? They beleive there were other emails of relevence that were deleted and couldnāt be recovered? Hmmmmm.
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
Doesnāt this say she VIOLATED LAWS governing classified information . . . but she didnāt intend to violate the law?
Wait you just said:
Yes, yes she was found to have violated the law.
None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Governmentāor even with a commercial service like Gmail.
Isnāt he explaining that what happened violated the law?
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a personās actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
And there is the prosecutorial discression. Comey has laid out how Hillary VIOLATED the law, but why she shouldnāt be prosecuted.
Now itās your turn @NebraskaFootball . . . . find me some link that says she was not found to have broken any laws. This statement by Comey says she did.
#nooneabovethelawunlessyourclinton
1 Like
Groundhog Day. I have no desire to go down this whataboutism rabbit hole. Trump has had years. His own investigative bodies have cleared her of any criminal acts. It is so far above and beyond one sentence from James Comey at a press conference.
No Iām calling you out on a supposed fact you posted. Iāve posted it is incorrect and giving you the opportunity to prove my evidence wrong.
Thatās not true.
1 Like
The fact I posted was that Clinton was not found to have broken the law by multiple investigations crossing over multiple agencies and under two different administrations. One of which actually had as a part of their platform of making sure to fully investigate her and hold her accountable if she broke the law. They all came to the same conclusion. Years and years and years and years. With the last 3.5 years under an opposition party and now with an AG who has made it clear he has no hesitation to engage in partisan execution of law enforcement.
Now, back to the OP topic? Or are we going to re-litigate Hillary Clinton?
Thatās not true.
1 Like
Thatās not true either.
Comey statement show he DID find to to have broken laws, but didnāt mean to.
Iām guessing you mean that no charges were ever filed to see if she would be convicted of doing so.
Unless comey was lying in his statement to the American People and in his referal to the Obama justice department.
Embrace? Prove the corruption. Prove they didnāt do things āby the book.ā
Trump supporters are pretending, hoping and wishing something happened. Someone needs to step up and bring some indictments. Itās been nearly four years and these horrible horrific acts by Obama continue to elude Trumpās best and brightest. Either theyāre not good at their job or thereās nothing there to begin with.
NO, there werenāt. There were ACCUSATIONS of Obstruction but what was done was perfectly lawful. You know what used to be considered a bad thing? Political witch hunts.
1 Like
The crazy thing is that the President kinda of got away with the obstruction because he did it all out in the open.
Send an email or make a phone call threatening Cohenā¦ totally illegal.
Send a tweet threatening Cohenā¦ totally cool for some reason.
So very very weird.
Thatās just ignorant. Tells me you have no damn clue what obstruction actually IS.
1 Like
Iām just going off what is in the Mueller Report.
You?
Let me put it to you this way. What crime was he charged with?
You want real obstruction of justice? Hillary was being investigated for having TS information on a personal server, which is a crime. She destroyed thousands of emails and devices, preventing prosecution. Say Iām accused of fraud and I take a hammer to my hard drive, what happens to me?
I mean imagine a mobster holding a press conference to remind his former lawyer, who is making a plea deal involving activities of said mobster, that something might happen to his dad.
Totally coolā¦ right?
Super normal.
1 Like
We are at a super level of Groundhog Day again.
1 Like
Absolute nonsense. Iāve read the āpossible obstructionā charges and theyāre just garbage.
Oh I know, some of you just canāt get over the fact that there was no collusion.
Show me where Trump did thatā¦ or better yetā¦ show me where Trump was charged with a crime that he was trying to get out of ā¦BIG DAMN DIFFERENCE.
