But her emails: Justice Department to review Clinton email case... again

Yep. Basically we are watching a lifelong public servant get his life and careers work destroyed simply because his wife also wanted to serve and he immediately did the right thing to file with the ethics office to ensure no conflicts of interest. Doing the right thing is what likely caused this massive conspiracy theory through terrible reporting and a propagated right wing.

 

The FBI director himself disputed that the evidence was worthy of prosecution. If you're using the word "indisputable" merely about the existence of emails, then I guess you're right, enjoy your semantic victory.

 

I can't believe people take random YouTube videos seriously.

 

He said it wasn't worthy of prosecution by misrepresenting the statute....and he did so knowingly. A Clinton donor had to edit his speech because at the same time he was trying to say that Hillary should not be prosecuted, the way he categorized what happened according to the evidence used the exact language from the statute describing the conditions of guilt. I never suggested that the investigation wasn't compromised at the top, it clearly was. I was merely talking about the evidence collected, you know, the indisputable proof of guilt.

 

As observed above, "guilt" in a case like this requires intent.

 

I'm not surprised that you are still confused despite me spelling everything out for you.....but you probably did your best and I guess that's all we can ask from someone that has your disadvantages.

 

As opposed to the disadvantage you hold, willful ignorance.

 

Kid, I spelled everything out for you in the most basic way possible, an only kind of slow 5 year old would have been able to follow it but you managed to fail. Perhaps that's just because your partisan nature prevents you from doing so, but if not... damn son.

I told you ahead of time that you'd only embarrass yourself by choosing this hill to die on, I tried to help you, but you simply wouldn't listen. Now just head to the corner before you hurt yourself.

 

Boy, you ignored reality. Indisputable evidence of guilt in this case requires the actual intent to mishandle or disseminate classified information. Since there was no such intent, there is also no guilt, skippy.

ROFL, too bad you don't have enough sense to be embarrassed over your epic failure here.

Try again, rookie, I love to watch you flail.

 

No it doesn't you simpleton. Read the statute.

I mean, I've spelled this fact out for you many times, even posting the actual language from the statute and yet you still continue to spout off with this inaccurate BS? Do better kiddo.

Here you go one more time, read slowly, hopefully it'll sink in this time


"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, 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 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

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both"

Indisputable evidence requires exactly what it says above and that exists. Sorry kid, but you don't have a leg to stand on here.

I'm sure other partisan hacks commend you for trying to deny the obvious, but you never had a chance.

 

Hilarious. You do realize there is more than just the statute to consider, right? No, you don't, you just toss out insults and make assumptions.

I'm talking about reality, boy. The reality is that nobody has ever, in the history of the statute in question, been prosecuted successfully in the absence of intent.

I know for a fact that it won't sink in for you, you're too committed to your ignorance.

The relevant passage here is "in violation of his trust." In order to commit such a violation, you must have the intent to do so, that is how the law has been interpreted.

You're wrong, chief. Indisputable evidence of guilt in this case requires intent, as interpreted by the courts and as specifically discussed by the statement of the FBI director who stated in no uncertain terms that there were no reasonable prosecutors who would consider even charging Clinton with any wrongdoing whatsoever.

I'm not the partisan here, I vote Libertarian.

 

Got a law degree? Or just make **** up all of the ****ing time?

 

Not when it comes to the FBI, they just look to see if the person broke the law and Hillary clearly did according to what the actual law says. The Attorney General could decide that despite the evidence of guilt they decline to prosecute, but that's not the job of the FBI director.

Important to note, I didn't offer assumptions, I only brought facts that you wish weren't true.

There was a Naval operations specialist that might disagree with your inaccurate hot take. In fact, his attorneys attempted to make the same case, that intent had to be proven in order to bring that charge....and that was soundly rejected by the court and the man ended up doing 2 years over it.

The argument that congress must not have meant what it said when they wrote the law isn't one that worked for him, but Hillary's de facto attorney and judge James Comey apparently did a better job making that argument to....himself.

No you simpleton, "in violation of his trust" means mishandling the classified information you were entrusted to handle properly. You are once again arguing that the legal standard explicitly spelled out in the statute is not the legal standard that should be used....I hope you understand why that is feeble minded and why that exact argument has failed for others.

As to when it comes to "indisputable evidence of guilt", the requirements for that are as spelled out in the statute, not what you wish they were so that Hillary wouldn't be guilty.

It's adorable that you think anyone would buy that.

 

Just not according to the way the law has been interpreted by the courts.

The FBI didn't decide not to prosecute, they merely recommended to DoJ that no prosecution be brought. Here is the relevant passage from Comey's statement.

"After a tremendous amount of work over the last year, the FBI is completing its investigation and referring the case to the Department of Justice for a prosecutive decision."

No, you're assuming that intent isn't part of these kinds of cases. However, according to the courts, it is.

The issue of intent wasn't rejected in that case, merely that defendant's use of it.

You realize that Comey didn't actually dismiss the case and that DoJ could still have brought charges despite the FBI recommendation, right?

Aww, isn't that cute, you run out of actual arguments and toss out insults. Keep it up, rookie.

No, I'm telling you (since you're apparently incapable of seeing anything outside your personal interpretation of the statute) how the courts have interpreted that passage.

It failed for others because the facts of their cases were different.

I have no dog in this hunt. I couldn't care less whether Clinton is prosecuted.

One of the biggest differences between you and I is that I don't have to lie to make a point...

 

Please quote correctly so the ignore list can do its job.

 

Now I know it may be a bit harsh calling you a liar for merely regurgitating propaganda, but given that I've spelled out to you how it's wrong, at this point you know better and it's safe to say you are just lying. When your argument is that the correct interpretation of the statute is completely different than how it is written and how it has been interpreted by courts in the past, you aren't going to get far kiddo.....even if a politically compromised FBI director spouted off with that spin.

By all means though, keep lying if you think that's what you need to do but you aren't going to get anywhere with it.

 

You didn't point out how I was wrong, you just repeated the same assumptions again and again.

 

I've done it many, many times in this thread alone kiddo, at this point you are either going to admit to your BS and follow along, or you are going to continue to lie. Honestly, it doesn't matter either way.

 

I haven't lied once, boy. You're the one restricting your view of the statute to your interpretation of the language. The law doesn't work that way, perhaps you should learn something for a change.