Posted on 08/25/2016 12:11:45 PM PDT by Kaslin
Actions. What prize do I win?
Gowdy = elected Joe Dirt.
Friends of Bill and Islam
Comey’s rationale never held water. Of course there was intent. Clinton intentionally set up a personal server to send and receive government information, which she knew was a violation of federal law. They don’t need to prove it was for a nefarious purpose (although it was), only that she intentionally bypassed the government email system. In doing so she -as a minimum - was grossly negligent in exposing classified information to hackers. And a finding of negligence does not require proof of intent. Comey is a shill for Obama and abrogated his oath of office in protecting the candidate of the Democratic Party.
Can’t prove intent in a courtroom. It’s like a cop giving you a ticket for intent on crossing a double yellow line; even if you didn’t based on what you said the cop knew you intended to do it and gave you the ticket.
The question to be asked re: intent is “Why did you set up your own private server instead of using the secure State Dept system? No doubt her answer would addressed convenience.
Then the follow up should have been “Were you aware that the use of a non secure system potentially compromised national security, and violated requirements to comply with laws ensuring access for FOIA requests?” Depending on her answer, either she lied about not knowing the implications of her decision to side step the law, or she knowingly broke the law.
But the FBI wasn’t interested.
Like I wrote previously: based on that a cop can give you a ticket because he thought you intended to cross a double yellow line even though you didn’t. In case of the speeder, that person actually did speed, intent or not. Now if the cop thought the driver was intending to speed and then pulled the driver over and gave them a ticket for speeding ....
But see, you actually did speed intent or not. Like I wrote earlier - how’d you like to get a speeding ticket just because the cop knew or thought he knew you intended to speed?
Want on or off this ping list of 50+ (and growing) FReepers? Just drop me a FReep mail.
and the fact she broke a law or rule should be good enough to charge her, but alas she has n o rules or laws where as we do.
And she actually mishandled classified material.
She should have been charged.
Everyone else is.
Could a federal grand jury Independently launch its own investigation and then hand down indictments without any input from the DOJ?
Exactly. She did break the law intent or not. I didn’t intend to jump off that cliff but lookie here how fast that ground is approaching.
The FBI rolled over; the DOJ is who’s responsible. And guess who’s in charge of the DOJ? Yep.
“How do you prove intent?”
You back into it. Did Hillary turn over the server when asked? No. Was it her intent to hide the server from prying eyes? Yes. There’s intent. She cannot say she didn’t intend to hide the server because she was asked for it and refused.
She acknowledged the server. Was because she intended not to reveal it? But, after it was found out and then she tried to hide it, then there is intent to deceive because of foreknowledge. Again, it’s like the cop giving you a ticket because he knew you intended to cross a double yellow line even though in your mind that thought never occurred for you to do it.
Hillary Wasn’t Indicted Over Email Scandal Because... she’s a democrat and Comey figures he’ll be be named to public office, with a fat salary and lots of perks, when she wins.
End of story.
Benghazi ping.
Let Republicanprofessor know if you want on or off this list.
That’s about it.
But Comey has no intent to nail H->!, nor does Gowdy have any Intent to put up any trophy heads in the empty Issa Memorial Trophy room.
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.