Skip to comments.
Lynch says: Fed records laws not clear cut
Congressional Hearing
| 7/12/16
Posted on 07/12/2016 9:36:45 AM PDT by dontreadthis
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-72 next last
To: Lumper20
And, did you comprehend your duties and responsibilities? And possible consequences of violating those? I’m guessin you “got” it. Geez you would think someone(hildabeast) that has spent that much time in the halls of power would have the comprehension skills to “get” it. Don’t believe I want some one with ZERO comprehension skill running the country.
41
posted on
07/12/2016 9:59:56 AM PDT
by
rktman
(Enlisted in the Navy in '67 to protect folks rights to strip my rights. WTH?!)
To: dontreadthis
Does anyone seriously think Loertta would utter such a statement if GWB was the President. This is beyond ridiculous and needs to just stop. I hope when Pres Trump is in the oval office that he will sic his DOJ and FBI onto the Klintoon sleaze foundation like a pit bull. THEY ARE NOT ABOVE THE LAW.
42
posted on
07/12/2016 10:00:51 AM PDT
by
Cheerio
(Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
To: dontreadthis
Lynch admitted she had knowledge of US security secrets
going to Enemies of the USA and the Constitution.
Lynch admitted KNOWLEDGE of treason.
And the GOP yawned, and collected their silver.
43
posted on
07/12/2016 10:01:12 AM PDT
by
Diogenesis
("When a crime is unpunished, the world is unbalanced.")
To: dontreadthis
Absolute grounds for impeachment.
44
posted on
07/12/2016 10:01:31 AM PDT
by
ctdonath2
(“If anyone will not listen to your words, shake the dust from your feet and leave them.” - Jesus)
To: dontreadthis
They why have people been jailed over those laws ?
45
posted on
07/12/2016 10:02:09 AM PDT
by
justa-hairyape
(The user name is sarcastic. Although at times it may not appear that way.)
To: dontreadthis
So why don’t the republicans start immediate impeachment proceedings? It is obvious that she incompetent and has no intent to uphold her oath of office. You know like they did to the IRS comish! Oh wait, I forgot.
46
posted on
07/12/2016 10:02:16 AM PDT
by
Colo9250
(Trump/Palin 2016!)
To: dontreadthis
> it is NOT necessarily illegal to share classified material with an individual without security clearance
It depends on the letter by the individual’s name.
R - illegal
D - legal
To: NormsRevenge
between Obammy and Loretta LynchMob,, this nation has been taken over by idiots CRIMINALS who could care less about the rule of law.
There is my version of your comment.
48
posted on
07/12/2016 10:04:48 AM PDT
by
Cheerio
(Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
To: dontreadthis
Atty Genl Lynch testified today that it is NOT necessarily illegal to share classified material with an individual without security clearance Yes, yes it is.
49
posted on
07/12/2016 10:05:04 AM PDT
by
rjsimmon
(The Tree of Liberty Thirsts)
To: dontreadthis
STupid or CORRUPT or BOTH for the LYNCHSTER!!
50
posted on
07/12/2016 10:07:26 AM PDT
by
Ann Archy
(ABORTION....... The HUMAN Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.)
To: dontreadthis
Obama...”It is not clear what the motives of the shooter were...”
51
posted on
07/12/2016 10:07:31 AM PDT
by
RetSignman
(Obama is the walking, talking middle finger in the face of America)
To: dontreadthis
Anyone here would be hauled off in a no knock warrant and held in perpetuity for doing this.
52
posted on
07/12/2016 10:09:50 AM PDT
by
combat_boots
(The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto!)
To: Cecily
Because the government is corrupt.
To: aspasia
Well technically she is correct. It depends on whether there was malicious intent or collaboration with some foreign entity, if we are only talking about disseminating the classified information, separate from the issue of the mishandling of the information on a private server.
To: dontreadthis
illegal, undocumented; classified, not classified
What’s the difference? say the lawless Obamanites.
55
posted on
07/12/2016 10:23:26 AM PDT
by
tumblindice
(America's founding fathers: all armed conservatives.)
To: tumblindice
Cpmey: `No one has been prosecuted under this musty, dusty old law ... except for a bunch of nobodies.’
56
posted on
07/12/2016 10:24:57 AM PDT
by
tumblindice
(America's founding fathers: all armed conservatives.)
To: dontreadthis
57
posted on
07/12/2016 10:36:40 AM PDT
by
SMARTY
("What is freedom? To have the will to be responsible for one's self. "M. Stirner)
To: alpo
58
posted on
07/12/2016 10:40:17 AM PDT
by
SMARTY
("What is freedom? To have the will to be responsible for one's self. "M. Stirner)
To: rjsimmon
Yes, it is! But when it comes to Hillary, or any other theoretical case that she can’t talk about, Lynch views laws as guidance . . . Can someone tell me how she qualifies to be Attorney General?
To: dontreadthis
She’s correct. There are exceptions to the rules that are spelled out in the law. If a person without a clearance requires one-time or short-term access to classified material in order to perform their job, it can be granted by the original classification authority for the material they need to access. It’s in the books, but I never saw it used because no one ever wanted to be the one held responsible.
60
posted on
07/12/2016 10:53:07 AM PDT
by
mbynack
(Retired USAF SMSgt)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-72 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson