Hillary Clinton

But taking notice of what source it comes from and give it a second thought is at least as worthy (and important).

 

So why can't we all just forget about it? She's been exonerated of any crime and I hope she uses better judgment in the future when she's President. But I'm sure you and many others will be bringing it up years from now, calling for her impeachment.

 

Okiefreak said that not even Ken Starr could find any merit to most of the allegations. So I asked him which ones he did find merit in. And then I made the comment that Starr would have found merit in Hillary using an unauthorized email server. So the question to him was which allegations were not part of most of the allegations he was referring to.

 

No, she broke the law. That's already been established in this thread. If you have an argument why she should be let off the hook when Bryan Nishimura was not let off the hook, let's hear it.

Also, she has obviously not been let off the hook by the Judiciary Committee.
______________________________________________________________________________

As part of the Judiciary Committee’s ongoing oversight of Secretary Clinton’s unauthorized use of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State, the Justice Department (DOJ) provided in camera review’ of certain immunity agreements. After a specific request from the Committee, based on references made in the immunity agreements to certain “side agreements,” DOJ subsequently provided in camera review of those “side agreements” between DOJ, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and Beth Wilkinson, the lawyer representing both Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson. Like many things about this case, these new materials raise more questions than answers. Please provide a written response to the below questions and make DOJ staff available for a briefing on this matter no later than October 10, 2016.

1.Why did the FBI agree to destroy both Cheryl Mills’ and Heather Samuelson’s laptops after concluding its search?

2.Doesn’t the willingness of Ms. Mills and Ms. Samuelson to have their laptops destroyed by the FBI contradict their claim that the laptops could have been withheld because they contained non-relevant, privileged information? If so, doesn’t that undermine the claim that the side agreements were necessary?

3.Please explain why DOJ agreed to limit their search of the Mills and Samuelson laptops to a date no later than January 31, 2015and therefore give up any opportunity to find evidence related to the destruction of evidence or obstruction of justice related to Secretary Clinton’s unauthorized use of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State.

4.Why was this time limit necessary when Ms. Mills and Ms. Samuelson were granted immunity for any potential destruction of evidence charges?

5.Please confirm whether a grand jury was convened to investigate Secretary Clinton’s unauthorized use of a private email server. Disclosure is authorized under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(A)(i) and (e)(3)(D).

http://politicalcult.com/letter-proves-fbi-colluded-hillary/
___________________________________________________​_________________________

​Y​up, just another open and shut case. Sure.

Read all of the hanging question here:

https://www.scribd.com/document/326263616/100316-Goodlatte-Letter-to-AG-Lynch#from_embed

 

You've shifted ground. What Starr would make of the email controversy is speculative, but my bet is he'd go after her at least as vigorously as Republicans like Chavettz of Utah. The stuff you're talking about came long after Ken Starr's service as special prosecutor in the nineties. Starr, a Jaber-style prosecutor, was appointed to go after the anti-Clinton allegations of the day, and when he was unable to come up with anything, he dug up Bill's affair with Monica. To the best of anyone's knowledge, that affair, though tawdry, was between two consenting adults. What caught Bill was his effort at cover up. "I did not have sex with that woman"The Benghazi and email controversies came up much more recently. Congressional investigations were thorough, and the FBI found gross negligence on the part of Hillary but declined to prosecute, following prosecutorial precedent. Partisan politics has been central to all of this. We have a binary choice between two deeply flawed candidates. I think Trump is the greater disaster. All of his self-inflicted, on-going wounds make clear that he lacks a presidential temperament and has the impulse control of a two year old.

 

Not shifting ground. I said "Starr would have found . . ." I thought the word would would clarify that I was speculating.

Not talking about congressional investigation. But you are correct in that the FBI Director found Clinton guilty of gross negligence. But you are incorrect concerning your notion that there is a precedent for not prosecuting such a thing. I just provided an example in my last post. You must have missed it.

 

Not support a witch hunt, but look at the facts and then confirm what the facts indicate, and then apply the law to the facts of Clinton's actions.

 

You didn't watch the debate did you?

 

You've been shown over and over again that gross negligence is a crime in Clinton's case. But you don't want to admit it. You have a problem! You've even been show the Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement she signed, stating that she received proper training in the handling of classified material, and that she understands her legal obligations under that agreement. But you don't want to see that for what it is. You have a problem! You've also been shown that FBI Director Comey does not have any authority to inject an "intent clause" into the U.S. Code concerning gross negligence. But you didn't want to admit it. You have a problem!

You've also been shown that Bryan Nishimura was prosecuted for gross negligence for the same type of . . . gross negligence as Clinton has done. But you don't want to see it.

Did you know that a computer specialist deleted Hillary Clinton’s emails despite orders from Congress to preserve them and was then given immunity by the Justice Department during its investigation into her personal email account? And did you know that I speculate that you will not want to see that for what it is either?

 

I won't be voting for Hillary Clinton because I don't support war, more war, Wall St. bonus bailouts, the NSA, the TSA, the drug war, asset forfeiture, for-profit prisons, drone bombings, domestic spying, militarized police, and torture.

 

Oh, yes. All three. Every minute. Are you suggesting that Clinton's failure to be flustered by Trump's menacing presence stalking her on the stage is a flaw on her part? What's your point?

 

Did you know that Colin Powell also had government business on their private servers? I respect the FBI's judgement in deciding that Hillary's conduct fell short of a prosecutable offense.

With Trump, major war is likely, because he has a very short fuse. I seriously doubt a rich guy like that will sever you from all of the horribles you mention. You'll be empowering Breitbart white nationalists.

 

Yeah, she broke the law. She violated the Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement she signed. You can repeat that she didn't a zillion time, and a zillion times you would be wrong. Repeating your denial of the fact does not change the fact. And neither will your denial that her actions also violate the U.S. Code change the fact that she is in violation.

 

And did you know:

1. Clinton exclusively used a private email account to conduct State Department business. Powell did not.

2. Clinton had a private email server, located at her house. Powell did not.

3. The rules governing electronic communication changed considerably--and got more strict--between Powell's time in office and Clinton's.

This from the essential WaPo Fact Checker:
_____________________________________________________________________

Colin Powell says:

"Her (Clinton) people have been trying to pin it on me,"

"The truth is, she was using [the private email server] for a year before I sent her a memo telling her what I did,"
___________________________________________​_________________________

And even if their actions were equal, are you advocating the idea that if you can prove that someone else got away with something illegal, then those who follow in their footsteps are immune from prosecution?

 

Then how'd you miss the fly that landed on her face on live tv?

 

He was speculating that perhaps it was faked.

 

The fly landed on her twice during the debate - once on the front of her pantsuit and once on her face. One would know that if they'd been watching.

 

But Trump is worse, therefore we must sweep all of this under the rug and pretend she's perfect mmmkay?