Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Section 793 of the Penal Code, subsection (f) is a problem for Hillary Clinton. It is very specific in defining the offenses which meet the criteria for a violation and it appears that Ms Clinton has potentially thousands of counts, perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands, against her.
Yes, people always talk about there being no smoking gun evidence, well, in this case, there is.
Hillary also shared top secret drone strike information with someone outside the government, and without a security clearance. That is also in violation of the Espionage Act.
The amount of evidence publicly available makes it impossible for the DOJ not indict.
Oh ~ in the opinion of Mark Levin - who has hated ALL things Clinton since Bill was in office and a regular FOX contributor.
He's not biased. <Sarcasm>
Yes, Hillary supporters will say that, and this is what I would say to them.
What about the legal experts that are all saying the same thing?
The only legal experts that are defending Hillary are all saying the same thing, you can't prove intent. They aren't saying she didn't commit espionage, they are saying it will be hard to provide enough evidence to show intent.
The problem is that there is evidence to support intent, however, you don't need to prove intent with espionage. As soon as she removed the classified information from the secure government systems, and put it on here unsecure, unauthorised private server, she committed espionage.
There really is no legal defense for what Hillary did, it's all going to come down to whether or not the DOJ is willing to indict Hillary or not.
We all know that regardless of all the publicly available evidence, the DOJ will refuse to indict.
Yes, Hillary supporters will say that, and this is what I would say to them.
What about the legal experts that are all saying the same thing?
The only legal experts that are defending Hillary are all saying the same thing, you can't prove intent. They aren't saying she didn't commit espionage, they are saying it will be hard to provide enough evidence to show intent.
The problem is that there is evidence to support intent, however, you don't need to prove intent with espionage.
Yeah...crazy that the GOP blew the one chance they had to run with a candidate who could actually win.
Trump makes an FBI investigation against his opponent look like a molehill compared to the mountain of crap he brings with his campaign.
...and espionage is a pretty strong word. You'll find sailors and soldiers committing espionage everyday by your definition. Every time an email is forwarded home with a possible return from deployment date, or printed off at home despite its classification, I guess that's espionage? I can tell you as a veteran that in the email era, the only people who you can be sure have not compromised information in some way, are the IT guys...and even they have slipped up on occasion.
The more you all reach with this stuff, the further Hillary pulls ahead.
Yes, Hillary supporters will say that, and this is what I would say to them.
What about the legal experts that are all saying the same thing?
The only legal experts that are defending Hillary are all saying the same thing, you can't prove intent. They aren't saying she didn't commit espionage, they are saying it will be hard to provide enough evidence to show intent.
The problem is that there is evidence to support intent, however, you don't need to prove intent with espionage. As soon as she removed the classified information from the secure government systems, and put it on here unsecure, unauthorised private server, she committed espionage.
There really is no legal defense for what Hillary did, it's all going to come down to whether or not the DOJ is willing to indict Hillary or not.
We all know that regardless of all the publicly available evidence, the DOJ will refuse to indict.
Please cite all these so-called "experts" who are claiming she committed espionage. And no, Mark Levin doesn't count.
There's another thread this morning claiming she had John Ashe murdered. These Clinton conspiracy nuts know no bounds. It's a thriving cottage industry, fueled by the likes of Mark Levin. But the good news is, people stopped paying attention to them years ago. This is just more of the same.
Yeah...crazy that the GOP blew the one chance they had to run with a candidate who could actually win.
Trump makes an FBI investigation against his opponent look like a molehill compared to the mountain of crap he brings with his campaign.
...and espionage is a pretty strong word. You'll find sailors and soldiers committing espionage everyday by your definition. Every time an email is forwarded home with a possible return from deployment date, or printed off at home despite its classification, I guess that's espionage? I can tell you as a veteran that in the email era, the only people who you can be sure have not compromised information in some way, are the IT guys...and even they have slipped up on occasion.
The more you all reach with this stuff, the further Hillary pulls ahead.
So...please, continue. Lol
Only morally bankrupt ignoramuses would think Trump is worse than Hillary and ignore her complete corruption and illegal doings at the highest levels.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
