Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Intent is an excuse. Read the damn FBI statement.
And your qualifications to consider these criminal are greater than the director of the FBI and his bevy of attorneys because …
The Donald is not being criminally prosecuted for his Trump U scam. You upset about that? And how about the fact that the civil trial is postponed until after the election?
So what was the crime she committed?
What a crybaby. All of them. Waaaa! I didn’t get what Faux News promised! Waaaa! Just last week they were all lauding Comey for his integrity and honesty, assuring the world that he would get to the bottom of this. Now they all want him investigated himself because the facts aren’t what they wanted them to be.
Stick your pacifier back in your fat yap, Clothy, and crawl back under your rock.
Fuckups there were in spades, but apparently none of them were actually criminal. Aren’t you an ex-cop? Do you not, then, actually believe in the rule of law? Apparently, after spending something like a year and God knows how many wasted man-hours, the FBI couldn’t find anything plausible to charge her with. So, what do you think? Should we just, you know, make up a charge, in the time-honored fashion of third-world dictatorships everywhere?
So, bacause this case didn’t come out the way you thought it should, you should slander the head of the FBI, without the slightest shred of evidence. Nice.
Good lord, Clothy what a piece of work you are. To quote a movie, “I’ve never met anyone who made being a son of a bitch such a point of pride.”
Clothahump = “Always wrong, but never uncertain!”
A distinction without a difference it seems to me. How can you intend to break a law that you don’t know exists?
I think he was being self-referential. He wants to hate, so he’ll hate, and neither logic nor reason will retard his vehemence.
At least the OP came right out and called Comey corrupt which is better than these milquetoast pansies in Congress who are saying “Now, I totally respect the FBI and their work and they’re so awesome… but the system is obviously rigged and this is bullshit.”
Exactly this. I’d venture to say that there is not a single person in the Department of State or even in the entire government who has not, at one time or another, breached security in one way or another. It’s almost impossible not to. I know I did on several occasions. For the SecState or any other big cheese to do so is more egregious, but it doesn’t rise to the level of criminality unless that person is deliberately giving information to the enemy. People like the OP have bought the party line and talking head nonsense in its entirety.
I notice that Clothahump and Starving Artist have not pressed the FBI to open the investigations of Powell and Rice for those of their actions that were the same as those of Clinton.
I wonder why that is?
It does kind of remind me of this:
During Reagan Administration:
10 Embassy Attacks
318 Deaths
(1 U.S. Ambassador killed
18 CIA officers killed
254 Marines killed)
Congressional Investigations: 1
During Bush Administration:
13 Embassy Attacks
66 Deaths
(3 American Diplomats Killed
22 Embassy Employees Killed)
Congressional Investigations: 0
During Obama Administration:
2 Embassy Attacks
4 American Deaths
(1 American Diplomat Killed)
Congressional Investigations: 13
Cost to U.S. taxpayers for partisan witchhunts: $14,000,000.
How can you break a law if no one seems to be able to say what it is?
Please note that she is, in fact, no longer SecState.
But you can *exonerate *someone with a little experiment …
Hey Clothahump, remind everyone about how you were just as upset and frothing at the mouth for justice over the big Bush administration’s email cotroversy. I mean, if they did the same thing she did, then obviously you would have been just as upset about it. More upset probably, with 88 separate accounts on their own private domain, 140k emails to & from Karl Rove alone, all just up and deleted even after congressional requests for that information, you must have been going absolutely insane.
Except, I can’t seem to find anything in your posting history about it. I just missed those posts, right?
Not intent to break a law, intent to send secret documents to unauthorized persons.
I’m not Bricker or another lawyer, but my understanding is that you don’t have to know you’re breaking the law. You have to know you’re committing the act the law forbids.
For example, let’s say you broke the law about speeding, and that this is a law that required intent. If you didn’t know you were speeding, that would be a defense. Not knowing that speeding was against the law would not be.
In this case, the argument is that Clinton was unaware that she had sent classified information, and so she didn’t have the intent.
It’s been pointed out many times well before the verdict that mistakes with low level classified information (And not deliberate leaks) tend not to result in criminal charges for anyone. Clearance is affected. Your job may be affected. But you won’t go to court.
Clinton is not getting any special treatment.
I will confess to not caring enough to do the research, but I was under the impression the allegation is only that she *received *(unmarked) classified information, not that she sent any to someone who wasn’t authorized to view it.
The FBI statement notes that there were seven email chains where Secretary Clinton both sent and received information that was classified at that point.