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.
No, it doesn't, because Trump demonstrably DID "...willfully and unlawfully conceal or remove...".
You don't have to show intent to do something if you can show the thing actually happened. You might want to get a refund on your law degree, counselor.
Hillary was being investigated ON DIFFERENT CHARGES than Trump.
Intent is not needed for any of the three charges listed on the search warrant.
I cannot remember, was she being investigated for obstruction of justice, because I'd think breaking mobile phones with hammers then handing them over to the FBI qualifies. But maybe I need to get my JD from C-D university
I cannot remember, was she being investigated for obstruction of justice, because I'd think breaking mobile phones with hammers then handing them over to the FBI qualifies. But maybe I need to get my JD from C-D university
Feel free to search for the details you're after if your memory is failing you.
legal matters do not rest on popularity consensus but on the actions of judges.
I'm still waiting for their formula on vast majority. They come up with 2/3 or 67% and don't know the total number to start with to get a %. They go by what the media tells them what is a vast majority like it's a consensus when this is all along to sway public opinion. That's why the DOJ leaks.
I mean, I will accept that the vast majority of legal experts in the MSM are against the judge ruling but they don't represent all the lawyers in the country or they represent all the opinions of judges. There is a big difference.
What is it about the concept of different charges/different statutes that, evidently, confuses you so?
The argument is why the Feds did not seek 793(e) against Clinton vs Trump. The Feds argued that Clinton did not 'intentionally' mishandle documents whereas Trump *may have* [under investigation].
How intent is interpreted here is obviously key. The weaker interpretation would be that HRC intended to move those classified documents to an inappropriate place. A stricter definition would be that HRC knew the law, and broke it anyways.
Comey, because he's in the pocket of the Clintons, chose the later, because it's very hard to prove. So he could dismiss those charges.
Hillary was being investigated ON DIFFERENT CHARGES than Trump.
Intent is not needed for any of the three charges listed on the search warrant.
What charges were listed on the search warrant? Hillary had classified information at her home which she destroyed under subpoena. I guess she needed intent to destroy classified information to be charged, it you do it by mistake you are home free. I guess Obama's DOJ needed her confession to admit her intent to indict her
What charges were listed on the search warrant? Hillary had classified information at her home which she destroyed under subpoena. I guess she needed intent to destroy classified information to be charged, it you do it by mistake you are home free. I guess Obama's DOJ needed her confession to admit her intent to indict her
The search warrant is out there for public viewing - the statutes referenced have been posted multiple times in this very thread.
The argument is why the Feds did not seek 793(e) against Clinton vs Trump. The Feds argued that Clinton did not 'intentionally' mishandle documents whereas Trump *may have* [under investigation].
How intent is interpreted here is obviously key. The weaker interpretation would be that HRC intended to move those classified documents to an inappropriate place. A stricter definition would be that HRC knew the law, and broke it anyways.
Comey, because he's in the pocket of the Clintons, chose the later, because it's very hard to prove. So he could dismiss those charges.
But you will pretend that did not happen.
You'd have to ask Trump's DOJ why they didn't investigate for obstruction. "Lock her up!", remember?
The Director of the FBI cannot dismiss charges. That's 100% up to the US Attorneys. I think we've been down this road before.
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.
