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.
I watched and listened. At the end he told the senior Dem on committee she did not break the law. Go ahead watch the entire hearing and do not just pick out the parts you like.
You still waiting to hear the POTUS say it was a terrorist attack from the rose garden aren't you
I watched and listened. At the end he told the senior Dem on committee she did not break the law. Go ahead watch the entire hearing and do not just pick out the parts you like.
You still waiting to hear the POTUS say it was a terrorist attack from the rose garden aren't you
No, he did not state that. He said that she violated the law, but he did not believe that to be her intent to, that she was just extremely careless.
The problem with his comment?
The law she violated does not have an "intent" component, merely a gross negligence requirement, to which she met.
(f) 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—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
Note the deviousness on his part. Again, intent is not a part of the law as you can see above, though he tries to spin it that intent was a component of it and even admits the portion to which actually meets the qualifications for section (f).
She committed a crime, he admitted it and then refused to charge her.
Why do you defend government corruption?
Also, as for the POTUS, the emails show him to be equally negligent. Both him and Hillary should be put in jail, but hey... when you run the government, and you are responsible for judging your own self, you will always come up innocent. They are criminals.
Edit:
Oh, and to show you that this is a crime, that simply being careless in such manners is a crime and the whole "intent" thing isn't an excuse:
When are we going to see criminal investigations started?
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.
