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.
We will move on to the server in a bit. Are you afraid to answer this question?
I'm not afraid at all.
I'm simply pointing out to you what Comey would have been thinking in terms of prosecution.
First, the law does not say anywhere that the Secretary of State's personal server is not an appropriate place for classified material to be stored. Now, in hindsight, we may consider such storage to be inappropriate, but to the level of gross negligence? Legally, that's doubtful that a judge or a jury would find gross negligence since there is no evidence the classified material was ever hacked or found its way into the hands of unauthorized persons.
Second, the Secretary of State has had the authority to make such determinations in the past. The Secretary of State, as a cabinet member whose appointment has been approved by Congress, has a very broad authority.
Third, if Secretary of State Clinton believed that the personal server was appropriate and secure, then the burden on the prosecution is to prove that her beliefs were totally unfounded. Since Secretaries of State in the past have had such authority, and since there is no evidence that classified material was hacked or leaked, then her beliefs weren't unfounded.
While you may believe that a crime was committed, the problem is that you would never get to sit on a jury. They ask potential jurors if they can be impartial and make up their minds based only on the evidence presented. You are not impartial. People who think like you are not impartial. Anyone who thinks she should be locked up is not impartial, and all would be barred from serving on a jury.
These are the kinds of things Comey and other attorneys consider. These are the kinds of things that Trump's advisors consider, when they advised Trump to jettison this whole "lock her up" thing.
Millions of dollars spent. Thousands of man-hours turning over every stone. Nothing criminal. Even Trump has to consider this a complete waste.
Taking the high road???? When has he EVER done that? Trump knew he'd never push to prosecute Clinton because as multiple investigations revealed, she didn't break any laws. He used the "lock her up" chant to whip crowds into a frenzy and nothing more.
Now that the election is over, Trump has no plans to pursue legal action against Hillary Clinton. There never was sufficient grounds to win a court case in the first place, and Trump knew that, but it was an effective tool to envigorate his base. It worked, he won and now the ploy is discarded.
I'm simply pointing out to you what Comey would have been thinking in terms of prosecution.
First, the law does not say anywhere that the Secretary of State's personal server is not an appropriate place for classified material to be stored. Now, in hindsight, we may consider such storage to be inappropriate, but to the level of gross negligence? Legally, that's doubtful that a judge or a jury would find gross negligence since there is no evidence the classified material was ever hacked or found its way into the hands of unauthorized persons.
Second, the Secretary of State has had the authority to make such determinations in the past. The Secretary of State, as a cabinet member whose appointment has been approved by Congress, has a very broad authority.
Third, if Secretary of State Clinton believed that the personal server was appropriate and secure, then the burden on the prosecution is to prove that her beliefs were totally unfounded. Since Secretaries of State in the past have had such authority, and since there is no evidence that classified material was hacked or leaked, then her beliefs weren't unfounded.
While you may believe that a crime was committed, the problem is that you would never get to sit on a jury. They ask potential jurors if they can be impartial and make up their minds based only on the evidence presented. You are not impartial. People who think like you are not impartial. Anyone who thinks she should be locked up is not impartial, and all would be barred from serving on a jury.
These are the kinds of things Comey and other attorneys consider. These are the kinds of things that Trump's advisors consider, when they advised Trump to jettison this whole "lock her up" thing.
Millions of dollars spent. Thousands of man-hours turning over every stone. Nothing criminal. Even Trump has to consider this a complete waste.
You must be afraid since you still haven't answered the question.
Now that the election is over, Trump has no plans to pursue legal action against Hillary Clinton. There never was sufficient grounds to win a court case in the first place, and Trump knew that, but it was an effective tool to envigorate his base. It worked, he won and now the ploy is discarded.
I wouldn't call it a "ploy" as it was still proof positive that she was untrustable and didn't have the basic decency to respect rules and policies that kept Americans and our armed forces safe. Its a pretty big deal.
The birther boy POS that just settled a lawsuit for swindling hopeful American entrepreneurs out of their savings could choose to prosecute ANYONE is the stuff ****ing bizarro world reality TV is made of.
He's not going after her because she didn't commit any crime the same way he stopped Ford from leaving Kentucky when they were never leaving in the first place. You've been conned! He played on your hatred for Hillary and pressed your buttons with his clever tiny hands.
I wouldn't call it a "ploy" as it was still proof positive that she was untrustable and didn't have the basic decency to respect rules and policies that kept Americans and our armed forces safe. Its a pretty big deal.
Is there any betrayal of Trumps' that you couldn't find a way to excuse, overlook, and justify to yourself?
You must be afraid since you still haven't answered the question.
Did she have classified material on her server?
I'm not afraid. But until you point out that the law says it's criminal for the Secretary of State to have a personal server, and that it's criminal for the Secretary of State to store classified material on that server, your question is moot. Step one for you is reading the law and sharing where it explicitly defines the Secretary of State's personal server as an inappropriate place for confidential material.
If you cannot do that, then the question of whether she did or did not have classified material on her server is moot.
This is how such issues are decided in a court of law.
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.
Trump will not prosecute Hillary as per Conway
