Donald Trump

Yeah, well....Again pounced on by you....nothing new there....Please stop harassing me personally.

 

I'm not sure anyone's mind will be changed at this point.
Just wanted to point out that as a liberal apostate, I can see both sides of the issue...

Trump isn't Hitler. Clinton isn't Evil. They have far more in common with each other than they do with any of us. There's a bigger gap between us and them...than between any of us.

Love all you! Be well.

 

Trump is getting really close!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/03/donald-trump-has-never-been-closer-to-the-presidency-than-he-is-at-this-moment/

 

If Trump wins and the apocalypse actually happens as a result, will I feel guilty for killing everyone? Yes. yes I would.

Would I change my vote? No. No I wouldn't. Fuck this shit, TRUMP! TAKE ME UP! MY BODY IS READY!

 

Didn't know we had a problem with the micks.

 

Donald Trump audience in Concord, NC

 

"Intention" is irrelevant. Forgetting for the moment that she is guilty of gross negligence to begin with. Her aides were not authorized to determine which emails to turn over. And if you looked into this months ago, then you know full well that her aides did not review them. They did a key words search. A top expert on federal record-keeping policy criticized the method Hillary Clinton’s lawyers used to determine which emails to forward to the State Department for archiving. Jason R. Baron, a lawyer at Drinker, Biddle and Reath and former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration, said that Clinton’s team should have manually reviewed every email she sent on a personal email account to find which ones pertained to government business. Instead, as Clinton revealed Tuesday, her attorneys searched the trove of emails for certain email addresses and subjects. Baron argued that raises the possibility that they missed some emails that should have been saved for the public record.

“There is an outstanding question, and it is a legitimate question, about whether she has now handed over all records pertaining to government business,” Baron says. “For example, in the case of an email that is mostly personal in nature but also contains a sentence or paragraph related to government business, then that email is a government record appropriate for preservation at the State Department, and should not continue to be withheld.”
____________________________________________________________________________

“In his statements before Congress, Director Comey repeatedly assured us that the FBI investigated whether charges of obstruction of justice and intentional destruction of records were merited,” the chairmen of three House committees and a Senate committee complained last week in a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch. “The facts of this investigation call those assertions into question.”

Congress has now obtained letters detailing unprecedented immunity agreements and side deals with multiple witnesses in the case — including one in which Comey agreed to prevent his investigators from reviewing any emails from Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills to Clinton’s server administrator Paul Combetta generated in late 2014 and early 2015. The off-limits correspondence, the chairmen point out, could reveal information “directing the destruction or concealment of federal records.”

Astonishingly, before Comey agreed to the June side deal with Mills’ attorney, he “already knew of the conference calls between Secretary Clinton’s attorneys and Mr. Combetta, his use of BleachBit, and the resulting deletions, further casting doubt on why the FBI would enter into such a limited evidentiary scope of review.”

In other words, Comey never really investigated Clinton and her aides for obstruction of justice, as he claimed. Lacking access to key evidence, he couldn’t have explored the possibility, though the circumstances were beyond suspicious.

http://nypost.com/2016/10/12/did-the-fbi-chief-lie-to-congress-about-the-hillary-email-probe/
_________________________________________________________________________________________

So much for the idea that the investigation was thorough. But first and foremost is the fact that Clinton violated the terms of the Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement which she was legally obligated to honor.

And this:

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—

​. . . couldn't be more clear concerning her gross negligence.

 

It was perfectly legal to not use a secure State email server?? Regulations from the National Archives and Records Administration at the time required that any emails sent or received from personal accounts be preserved as part of the agency’s records. Clinton and her aides failed to do so. It's called gross negligence. They are not the property of Clinton. She was not supposed to remove them from their proper place of custody--the State Department.

 

Seems to me there are two choices...a probable rapist of a 13 year who is facing court time in December over that, or someone who was careless with their emails....and in that case....no, it is not any hackers' fault...It is the victim's fault. I wonder if people think it was the 13 year old girl's fault, too.....hmmmm.

 

All's been covered? I've already shown you that in an interview with an FBI agent whose identity and role in the case has been verified by Fox, the agent made clear that it was unanimous among everyone who investigated that Clinton should have her security clearance pulled.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Now, as to whether or Clinton violated any U.S. Codes:

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
________________________________________________

I've bolded the pertinent parts. Clinton did have custody of the material. Having been trained in the proper protocol concerning the handling of such material, and having signed a Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement which legally binds her to the details of said agreement, and having failed to fulfill her legal obligations under that agreement, she did willfully conceal her emails; that is, unless you are gullible enough to believe her defense that she didn't understand her legal obligations. Are you gullible enough to believe that the senior most diplomatic official in the nation didn't know proper procedure concerning the handling of sensitive material? You've been asked this before.

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—
__________________________________________________

From the above, show me what caused you to believe that gross negligence depends on "intent." Is intent mentioned in the above? Do you see a synonym for the word "intent?" Yeah, me neither. So what makes you believe that intent is a necessary ingredient in the crime of gross negligence? And even assuming that intent must be proven in order to prove gross negligence, how would one go about proving that? By asking the guilty party if they intended to break the law? Wouldn't that be stupid?

Let's hear what he has to say about the issue of intent as it pertains to gross negligence:

"Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities."
_______________________________________

Did you fail to see that Comey draws a distinction between mishandling classified information "intentionally" and handling classified information in a grossly negligent way? Everyone without a bias can see it clearly. How about you. Or are you not going to believe your lying eyes?

But despite all of the above, rather than admit that Clinton has compromised security in the name of convenience, you stand behind Comey, and you respond with: Go Hillary!

 

Oh, but , Trumpie , you have the KKK behind you...Of course you do! They like the brand of hatred you incite and when asked about it, you say...."I know nothing about white supremacy...I know nothing about David Duke..." I just heard you say that with my own two little ears....so it is not heresay....Of course, you don't....Been living under a rock the last how many years now?

May you choke on your lies next time!

 

At least he's not lips deep in the KKK

 

I can't figure out if your lust for Clinton is the reason you keep arguing the literal outcome of her crimes not being prosecuted, or you genuinely can not see there are actual crimes. I hope the former, as no one in Germany moved against Hitler, either.

 

1. Lust as in your willful ignorance.
2. If I climb into your window tomorrow night and cut your throat, as long as I never get caught there is no crime.
3. What the law is.
4. Yes.

 

Bill Clinton has been accused of rape as well, including the statutory rape of underage girls aboard the Lolita Express, and Hillary shames his victims. As a lawyer she shamed a twelve year-old girl who was raped.

Also, it seems like people don't fully comprehend that innocent children die at the hands of warhawks like Hillary. She helps to destabilize regions where little babies end up getting blown to smithereens.

I get sick and tired of people acting like she is some kind of hero. I understand if you vote for her because you don't want Trump, but acting like she's this cool person when she's a god damned baby killer is just obscene.