My former roommate is a lawfag (top 5 schools in the country mind you) and he is also a hillary supporter. Me and him were arguing today and his key point for why she should not be indicted were
>was not law at the time she was in office
>cannot retroactively single her out when others have done the same thing (even if they were not breached)
>the quote "To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions." shows that the normal course of action is administrative action, which cannot be done since she does not work there
How would /pol/ counter these points? Other than calling him a cuck of course.
>>79894005
>>was not law at the time she was in office
that not true.
>>79894005
>me and him
Fuck off. You're a God damned retard
>>79894005
My friend is a lawfag (top 2 schools in the country mind you) and he says your friend is a fucking idiot.
>>79894005
>Untrue it was law
>Irreverent she broke the law
>The administrative action would be handled BY THE GOVERNMENT WHICH SHE IS WORKING FOR BY THE FUCKING WAY
Your roommate is a fucking retard
My friend is literally the best lawyer in the world and he says you're all fags.
>>79894205
This.
>>79894240
>Fucking KEK
>>79894005
>was not law at the time she was in office
That is a blatantly false statement. Some faggots cannot be reasoned with it seems.
>>79894005
The evidence clearly suggests that the law was broken, however the law clearly states that there is a burden of proof on the prosecutor to convince a jury that it was criminal misconduct. The system is absolutely rigged, that democratic prosecutor has a conflict of interest, SHE FUCKING MET PRIVATELY WITH BILL CLINTON.
Sounds like your friend got his "law degree" out of a cereal box.
>>79894005
People are interpreting that quote as 'we could charge her but we're not going to', when actually it's saying 'she didn't break any laws, but she did do some dumb stuff that she would normally be fired for'. As in they are NOT SAYING that they could charge/indict her but are selectively letting her off. They ARE SAYING that she should be administratively punished, but she can't be because she isn't part of an administration.
Again, to be clear, they are indeed saying she broke no laws.
>>79894850
>Again, to be clear, they are indeed saying she broke no laws.
And Comey was lying about that, obviously.
>>79894850
>>79894850
this is exactly what he is saying coupled with >>79894544. He said that the burden of proof is not there which is why she is not prosecuted.
>>79894850
pretty sure that's only half the story, he later goes on to contradict that entire statement.
Feds lose their jobs and possibly face charges for leaving classified documents on their desk overnight. Correct procedure in sensitive information handling exists for a reason, she deliberately said fuck it, and now we literally have no idea what's been leaked to whom.
>>79894850
When did it become law that you could not use private emails?
>>79895319
>handling of classified information
it's in the fucking job description nimwit
>>79895486
>job description
>law
2 different things, breaking company policy is not the same as breaking a law.
>>79895185
>>79894544
The reason the FBI's recommendation is important is because that's the decision. The prosecutor can't just up and say whether or not they will prosecute because of the conflict of interest. So who makes the decision then? The FBI at large gets to call the shot.
>>79894005
>cannot retroactively single her out when others have done the same thing (even if they were not breached)
Who said you'd single her out? You punish all involved.
Getting rid of corruption isn't like removing a splinter where you go after it with tweezers, it's like getting rid of gangrene, cut the limb off.
And let's just say they aren't corrupt, they're just extremely stupid. These people should not be working at the government with top secret information at their disposal if they're that god damn stupid.
As for the other points I'm lot a lawfag so I don't know.
>>79894005
>>was not law at the time she was in offic
call him a lying cuck faggot.
>>79894005
Even though both the fbi and the doj are corrupted as shit, sign the petition to charge Hillary...
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/charge-hillary-rodham-clinton-pursuant-18-usc-641-793-794-798-952-and-1924
>>79894005
this video
faceberg /DonaldTrump/videos/10157263351880725/
>>79895185
>>79894850
Also, there are supreme court rulings and precedents that aren't written into the law that must be taken into account. I'm just gonna copy paste something:
'The letter of the law includes supreme court decisions. Gorin v. US and New York Times v. US both deal with this issue. The court has always held that under espionage laws, in order to meet the standard for punishment, one has to have acted with intent to hurt the US.
'Because of those court decisions, and because of the case law here, a strict reading of the law does not in fact lean towards favoring indictment. '
>>79896193
Does this effectively mean that lawfags in general understand why she was not indicted while most "normal" people dont because they are not familiar with case law?
>>79895646
It kinda is when you work for the fucking law (aka government)
You must be leaf visiting the us
>>79896442
You could say that. I'd go even further and say that it's been obvious for a long time, for a long list of reasons both legal and not, that she wouldn't be indicted.
>>79895871
FBI is not a prosecuting agent it's an investigative one, you don't ask a cop to adjudicate your speed ticket do you?
>>79896830
If it was unclear, I was saying the prosecuting agent had a conflict of interest, so they can't make the decision. The FBI effectively gets to make the decision in this instance because of that.
>>79894005
Classified and sensitive material is to NEVER be moved off a secure network. Also call him a cuck.
there are open records laws and she deleted emails and calendar that should be accessible
she mixed foundation business with govt business
>>79894005
>>was not law at the time she was in office
Lie.
>>cannot retroactively single her out when others have done the same thing (even if they were not breached)
Bradley Manning, etcetera
>>the quote "To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions." shows that the normal course of action is administrative action, which cannot be done since she does not work there
This is Obama's fault, for using his own people as investigators. Regardless the judicial branch can press criminal charges on any citizen. Where the citizen works for a living does not matter.
>>79896939
>effectively
ehhhhh, it's not the final decision, let's put it that way, it's a decision
>>79896442
Case law is bullshit. A judge's mistaken precedent should not alter law passed by congress.
>>79894005
My dad got real pissed about this, since he works for fucking ONI. He has 3 different levels of classified material he works with along with that levels' server, and if he misplaced a few emails on the wrong classification, not even bringing a private email into the matter, he would lose his job at the very least. He's reminded every day by his superiors about how to sort and file reports/documents/emails, even though he's done this work all his career, literally 30+ years. So, needless to say, a fucking Secretary of State should be expected to work on a level higher than a inteligence worker.
>>79894205
I wish I could high five you, bro. Long live grammar Nazis
>>79897692
>he would lose his job at the very least.
that's basically what the FBI is saying, is that if she was still employed there, she should be fired for her conduct. Alas, she works for Wall St. now and doesn't have to worry about that.
>>79894005
>me and him
>top 5 schools in the country mind you
I mind you to call him a fucking lying cuck piece of Hahnrei like we say in Germany (top 1 cuck nation in the world mind you)
In every western nation criminal laws cannot be applied retroactively, it does not matter however since there were laws that would prohibit her from doing what she did.
>>79897609
Supreme court cases specifically can only be overruled by amendments. That is exactly how the system works and is important as a check and balance.
>>79898007
nice x22 ID
>>79897968
He told me that more likely, he would not be able to be hired at any gov job ever, and maybe worse.
>>79894005
>How would /pol/ counter these points?
Past behavior is strongly indicative of future behavior.
>>79894005
>implying /pol/ can respond to something they disagree with, with anything other than "cuck".
Yeah well my dad works for Nintendo and he says Mario will be president.
>>79896830
If you did the cop would convict, so what does it say when they say 'ahhh we'll let it slide'.
>>79894005
Your roommate is a retard. I'm also a top school lawfag, and let me tell you, there are lots of fucking dumbasses in law school.
>>79897692
Your dad is over reacting. If she was still SoS she would have real problems as the director has mentioned. But she's not so she isn't so weigh it appropriately.
>>79895871
...Its okay to admit you don't know how law works anon.
>>79899085
It's too much effort than its worth.
>setting up your own private email server for yourself counts as gross 'carelessness'
>>79894005
>top 5 schools in the country mind you
Kill yourself you elitist prick
>>79899733
What is OPSEC?
Also a fucking leaf
>>79896193
That is incorrect. There is no "intent to hurt the US" nexus. There is a criminal intent nexus inherent in all federal crimes, but this only requires scienter, which is intent or knowledge of wrongdoing. The State Department review last month made it clear that she knew she wasn't supposed to be using a private server. The reason for not prosecuting was political, not legal.
Comey said as much when he said "we have found evidence of potential violations of statutes."
>>79894005
>>was not law at the time she was in office
That is not true. The law in question went into effect in 2010.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2009-title18/USCODE-2009-title18-partI-chap37-sec793
It's true her server was set up in 2009, but the law was in effect while Hillary was receiving the classified data on the server. Any illegal uploads onto the server that took place after the law went into effect are crimes.
>>79894005
> To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences.
In other words, do NOT consider this a precedent. If any of you does it, you get life sentence.
> cannot retroactively single her out when others have done the same thing (even if they were not breached)
In other words, since Jack the Ripper was never caught, we cannot single future rippers out.
> My former roommate
I hope you went American psycho on him.
>>79894005
Morally what she did is despicable but his points are not moral ones, but lawful ones, and the law has said that she isn't going to jail
The justice system failed to uphold the spirit of our nation
>>79900051
That's not even mentioning gems like
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12605
>>79894005
>>79894240
>>79894369
I'm a lawyer(went to Harvard mind you) and I say you're friends right. I also have level 5 autism but that doesn't matter
>>79894005
The law technicalities are nonsense. Everyone who has served in the military and in substantive government positions understands the handling of classified information. The attempt to argue otherwise is like if we tolerated and expanded a fire department that never stopped or tried to fight any fires. You can say whatever you want about what the rules technically say, but if you lose the war, you lose the war. This is our elites' culture of excuse-making and buck-passing collapsing on itself.
>>79894005
>top 5 schools in the country mind you
You are in all top 5 schools at the same time? Please clarify your position.
You cuck.
>>79900487
>Sullivan: They say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it.
>Shillary: If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure
Shit. She really did it...
The first you can factcheck.
The second is undeniably true, not counterable within the realm of reason, logic or even just general sanity.
The last one is also accurate, as the worst they could currently do is fire her yet as she doesn't work for them they have no means to punish her from a non-legal approach.
You pretty much lost this battle in a very final manner unless he's sucked that first point out of his thumb.
These seem troubled times... but I believe there is much reason for hope. ((H8)) to sound like a shill but I don't think Hillary is flat out evil, as some here do ; BUT careless with SAP= putting people in peril?! Across the pond it's bloody pouring, but our weather always seems mild in comparison to yours. These are interesting times...
>>79900941
> as she doesn't work for them
Ok so if I steal blueprints from Ford, mail them to Lada, resign from Ford and Ford finds out... I'm safe? They can't fire me anymore, right?
> Mentions logic.
> Rapes logic.
How about you just give it up already. Move on to something more important like Obama's birth certificate you dim witted fucksticks.
>>79902496
Hello Adam.
>>79894005
You can't considering the law is being rewritten to suit her needs
>>79894850
This isn't reddit, dumbass. People in Comey's position choose their words very carefully before making a broadcast like that -- there would not be any room for question or doubt if he did not want there to be.
It is my hope that you're part of a paid damage control shillery brigade, but I fear that this rhetoric is indicative of the sort of mental gymnastics the average person is willing to make of their own accord when presented with the facts.
>>79903291
I mean, Hillary came out with a clear win here, no charges recommended. You sound like you're the one running damage control, trying to grasp at straws of things that won't be happening.
>>79903657
Trump came out ahead on this. Hillary is the weakest democrat he could run against. Not being charged keeps her in the race, but between the State Department report last month and the FBI's decision today, she looks corrupt and above the law. Everyone give Trump shit about honesty, but he beats her 2 to 1 amongst voters on honesty.
>>79903657
Springing to defend something that hasn't been attacked is an amateur move. I didn't make any accusations, only pointed out the obvious.
>inb4 im rubber ur glue
This was the equivalent of a party apparatchik not bringing charges against Stalin.
>>79894005
>was not law at the time she was in office
Most of these laws have been on the books since the eighteenth century. I doubt it'd be on the books for less than 50 years, yet alone less than 4, and last I checked it was last amended while she was in office.
>cannot retroactively single her out
This is not ex post facto prosecution. This is justice.
>when others have done the same thing
Petraeus didn't even set a precedent and I can recall him. This is an ages-old precedent. Politicians like Clinton are disqualified from office forever by the laws she violated. Also, she could face the death penalty in the worst case scenario.
>(even if they were not breached)
The server has been accessed by IP addresses in Moscow and Saint Petersburg, Russia. However, there is no solid evidence stating that the RW theory postulated by the Romanian hacker currently on trial for illegal third party access to confidential emails is true, since no traces of this were later found on Clinton's email servers in their "slack space".
>the quote...
Okay so how the fuck do you elect this woman for President if she should've been fired from the Department of State? Jesus Christ this man is stupid even if this is legally valid.
>>79900551
You're retarded, mind you I went to the second best high school in the United States, so I didn't even need to go to college.
>>79894005
>TRY GETTING A RESERVATION AT DORSIA NOW, YOU FUCKING STUPID BASTARD! YOU, FUCKING BASTARD!
>>79895646
There are laws involved with handling classified information. You make it sound like its a goddamn dress code in an employee handbook. Being careless is leaving your cell phone in the toilet. Taking the time, money, and effort to install a private email server in your basement to handle sensitive and/or classified info is a conscious decision to circumvent the system. So is deleting 30,000 emails. Christ, they crucified Nixon for 18 minutes of missing audio tape. 30,000 emails? And the FBI admits she lied, but this is all just one big "whoopsie, my bad" for HRC. The AG, Comey, and the rest need to be removed from their positions, and HRC needs to be held accountable in accordance with the law.
>>79894005
>shows that the normal course of action is administrative action, which cannot be done since she does not work there
remind your dumb fuck lawfag friend that this person is trying to get a job that will put her in a higher position than she would have lost if she wasn't named HRC
OP, you guys were arguing two different points. Keep in mind that there were two investigations into Hillary's email practices:
1. By the Department of State
2. By the FBI
The Dept. of State was investigating whether the act of setting up a private email server without asking permission violated the administrative regulations directing the conduct of employees. At the time Clinton set up the server, she was arguably allowed to do so, under an interpretation of the relevant regulation. Later, the regulations were changed, which essentially put her in violation. Nevertheless, even if she did violate the regulation, she would only face adminisrative - and not criminal - penalties.
The FBI's investigation was totally different. It involved looking to see whether her conduct violated a criminal statute concerning the handling of classified information. It was her mishandling of classified information that potentially subjected her to criminal penalties.
So, as you can see, the two inquiries were related, but asked different questions, and had different potential penalties: administrative vs. criminal.
Based on the conversation you posted, you and your roommate were conflating the two separated investigations and jumbling the possible outcomes of each.
t. 2L at U Chicago (#4 ranked law school).
>>79894005
>lawyers
>any better than politicians
What the fuck are you even doing OP?
>>79897468
>the judicial branch can press criminal charges on any citizen.
uh.
>>79894005
It was never not illegal to send TOP SECRET data over unsecured and monitored connections you fucking retarded faggot. People have gone to jail for way less.
>>79911934
it was classified, not top secret
>>79894205
Dropped it right there.
These are the retarded twatter shills. They only know three words "DELETE YOUR ACCOUNT"
>>79912131
lol wrong. there was top secret, secret and confidential information.
"classified" is not even a classification you retard
>>79912131
7 of them were actually top secret. 100+ more were lower levels of classified. And those are just the ones we know about! Even if you didn't indict on her gross negligence with state secrets, her actions leading up to and within the investigation are themselves blatantly illegal. She instructed her lawyer and IT guy to delete evidence in an incredibly transparent obstruction of justice and just straight up lied about not thinking her server had any classified information, which we know because of emails she sent instructing employees to strip the "classified" header off of sensitive documents!
>>79912131
Pretty sure recent email were confirmed TS, but it doesn't matter. The only requirement is that it's protected defense information. It doesn't even have to be classified for it to fall under the definition of espionage.
>>79894205
>>79912454
Espionage is not a grounded claim, as there's no evidence that she directly or indirectly transmitted data to an enemy of the state, or even intended to. What she is guilty of is gross negligence, obstruction of justice, and perjury.
>>79897771
sup reddit
who cares
your friend might be at a top law school but he truly doesnt no shit about actually practicing yet so he should shut the fuck up
he's just using his status as a law student to present some fallacy of appeal to authority when he's really just a partisan hack
>My former roommate is a lawfag (top 5 schools in the country mind you) and he is also a hillary supporter
what relevance does that have at all
>>79912131
There were some marked TOP SECRET
>>79894005
Jesus that's the best a law student had? I dumb carpenter, me hammer, me build.
Stop playing checkers with him, change the game.
> you can Google this, the FBI retroactively changed the law. She was guilty of the law yesterday. They changed it to add intent. They say she had no criminal intent.
This will affect the basis of all law. Mow down a bunch of kids on the side of the road because you were texting? You didn't have the INTENT to murder them.
> give up on the emails, they have. What was revealed today is that everyone knows, and can be proven without a doubt is that she lied under oath.
> that's a felony, and would disqualify her from working a cash drawer at 7-11.
Felons can't run for president?
Why would anyone elect a felon?
Stop having pointless arguments, and think out side the box, schlomo. Stop lying about law school on an anonymous image board for antique farm equipment.
Isn't selling national secrets treachery and is punishable by death?
>>79894005
>I can't argue with someone smarter than me
>I know, I'll get one of the dumbest boards on 4chan to help me out!
you gonna get btfo lol
Why do they keep falling back on "MUH INTENT"?
Isn't it fucking obvious that her intent was to hide her fucking emails from future FBI investigation and FOIA requests? Doesn't the deletion of 33,000 emails prove that?
>>79913622
>The FBI has the legislative authority to change the law
Stick to operating a bandsaw, George
>>79895311
Exactly. When a government employee with a security clearance demonstrates that they can't be trusted to protect classified information, they permanently lose the aforementioned security clearance.
>>79913920
What did she sell and to whom?
the whole premise of the need for two separate accounts
>I -I didn't want to have to carry around two smart phones
is so fucking weak. Its beyond the pale
I never expected to see an indictment, I know the rich and connected play by different rules, but the people who actually condone this level of negligence and subterfuge is sickening
>>79914894
national secrets
chinks
the jews
the germans
could be anyone really
I think the attempted cover up shows intent. And let's pretend it doesn't for a moment, the cover up is still a violation in and of itself.
>>79914432
Thanks for providing more proof to everyone how stupid maple niggers are.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/07/05/former-assistant-u-s-attorney-fumes-fbi-rewrites-federal-law-to-let-hillary-off-the-hook/
http://nypost.com/2016/07/05/fbi-boss-outrageous-double-standard-in-letting-hillary-skate/
http://time.com/4393859/fbi-hillary-clinton-email-fbi/
http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2016/07/05/giuliani-fbis-comey-putting-hillary-clinton-above-law.html
Now you have to have some reading ability to think through this, moose fucker. Notice how in every one of those articles they mention two sets of laws.
That's never happened. Nixon faced charges. Travel gate, Martha Stewart was arrested for exactly what Hillary did today.
This is case law now, Petraeus, Nishimura, and others have been prosecuted for EXACTLY WHAT SHE DID.
> read this, because you desperately need an education.
https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/press-releases/2015/folsom-naval-reservist-is-sentenced-after-pleading-guilty-to-unauthorized-removal-and-retention-of-classified-materials#disablemobile
American law says their is one set of laws. This has changed case law.
Sad when a carpenter can think circles around you, but most Canadians are about the IQ of our fifth graders, so I'm not surprised.
Assuming we believe what Comey said in his speech....
How the hell is she supposed to function as President without any security clearances?
Isn't the logical conclusion to permanently bar her from ever having access again?
>>79894005
I don't care about you or your faggot boyfriend. The only counter to his faggotry is a bullet through his faggy bolshevik skull.
>>79894005
>was not law at the time she was in office
That is 100% false. Gross negligence resulting in leaking classified information being outlawed has been law since before Clinton was born, but definitely since like 2010.
>cannot retroactively single her out when others have done the same thing (even if they were not breached)
It's actually the opposite. Others have done the same or less and been severely punished while she skates.
> the quote "To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions." shows that the normal course of action is administrative action, which cannot be done since she does not work there
False, this implies that she is receiving special treatment. "Administrative sanctions" is one option, but not the only possibility. Also, tell that to Brian Nishimura who was indicted and ultimately sentenced to probation and fines.
Your friend sounds like he is forsaking his knowledge of the law (assuming it was there in the first place) in order to support Clinton.
I knew a guy once who worked on Wall Street, specifically in S&T (municipal debt). He left the firm and joined a tech startup, but recently he was a Sanders supporter. Now in order to actually support Sanders, he had to basically 'forget' some basic concepts in finance/economics (like a scientist becoming a young earth creationist) in order to keep him from having to deal with the cognitive dissonance of what he knows and what he is saying (or specifically what Sanders was saying and he was repeating). Your friend sounds like the law/Clinton version of this person. That or maybe he's just dumb: you know what they call the person who graduates last in law school? A lawyer.
>>79913920
Treason, and yes. However, there isn't really any evidence that she sold them (had malice), it was just incompetence. Now, that in and of itself should disqualify her from being president.
>>79915678
> Travel gate, Martha Stewart was arrested for exactly what Hillary did today.
That's not true. Stewart was arrested and convicted of insider trading. She didn't have any access to classified information, so it was a non-issue. She obtained non-public information that Enron was going to fail and sold the stock.
>>79894005
>cannot retroactively single her out when others have done the same thing (even if they were not breached)
So if someone rapes a child its ok for another person to rape a child? Why are liberals such children?
>l-look mommy he stole a cookie from the jar too
>>79915733
The president doesn't go through the security clearance process. When a president is elected he is given access to everything: the equivalent to a top secret clearance and access to any and all special access programs at any time because your job counts as need to know. The thinking is that because you are elected, the American people have put their faith in you, thus granting you access to all classified information. However, everyone else (VP, congressmen, every law enforcement/intelligence/military/etc. position) needs to go through the traditional process (either SSBI for TS or NACLC for S or C).
She committed civil/administrative infractions, but not a crime. Title 18 doesnt apply.
>>79916517
Well that's terrifying...
If I were military or intelligence I'd quit as soon as she was sworn in to save myself.
>>79916260
Since your not an ass, I won't treat you like one.
http://biography.yourdictionary.com/articles/why-did-martha-stewart-go-to-jail.html
She was arrested for insider trading, AND PERJURY.
Hillary told a congressional formal hearing, under oath, that she never sent or received classified email.
The FBI admitted today that 44 top secret emails, 77 classified emails were sent through her.
THAT'S PERJURY SHE LIED UNDER OATH, THAT'S PART OF WHAT SENT MARTHA STEWART TO JAIL.
[Internally face palms]
Are you all drunk? this is common information, I've even supplied links because you are obviously unable to find it on your own.
I've never been more disappointed in my country or the people that live here more than today.
>>79916754
What you said is false.
>>79894005
Even if there were no legal reasons this bitch should be canned your friend needs to ask himself if electing such an incompetent whore is a wise course of action.
The bitch has been scandal ridden since day one with all sorts of unethical nonsense and that is certain to continue if she gets into office.
>>79898007
Schools aren't meant to educate they're meant to indoctrinate
>>79894005
I'm a lawyer (no meme) and despite not being knowledgeable as an US attorney, I can tell your shillfriend is full of shit.
Her job requiered a certain amount of professional diligence (higher than normal people). There law was already there when she was Secretary of State.
Negligence is punishable, so Comey saying she should not be prosecuted because she was just (((extremely careless))) is just bullshit. If a doctor left a pair of scissors inside his patient because he was extremely careless, he can be prosecuted for negligence.
>>79894005
They're not indicting her because they dont want to.
If they wanted to, they could.
They even admit to this in that quote.
>>79894005
I'd take Trump's failed businesses over Hillary's lack of national security.
>>79894205
This is a very advanced level of autism right here
>>79916823
Haha, I'm actually going to be applying to OCS with the Army, Navy, and Air Force in November (that's why I researched security clearances). Luckily, her leak won't affect me because my name is definitely not on any documents she leaked. That would suck, though, if you're an operations officer with the CIA and Clinton's leaks blow your cover and you get killed. I am worried about her (not super keen on Trump either), but I figure as an Ensign/2nd Lieutenant I'll be pretty removed from the president.
>>79916754
False, she is almost certainly guilty of mishandling classified information at the minimum:
> Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
Per Cornell Law School (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924), what she did is a felony, but there is definitely the evidence there to recommend an indictment. Actually read the law before parroting what other people tell you.
Others have done less than Clinton and been charged. They chose not to recommend charges because of who she is, not because she's innocent.
>>79916912
I was just nitpicking about Stewart. I know Clinton is also guilty.
>>79894005
I'm fine with her not being prosecuted. I just can't fathom how the State Department can justify renewing her clearance.
>>79917793
I'm just on edge, brother. I don't understand why Ollie North, etc. Have been force to resign in disgrace, yet the rules change for this deceitful bitch.
I'm on the fucking warpath. Please don't step onto it unless you want my wrath, or have insight to bring. If you want an argument, (I know where I am) I'm happy to oblige.
>>79894205
Technically speaking, "Her and I traveled" is wrong. Each has to stand on its own. "Her traveled" doesn't. But what puzzles me is why "Her and I" sounds OK. In comparison, "I and she traveled" sounds awkward even though it's technically correct. Whenever the "I" is included, it's usually the last one. "You and I traveled" sounds fine, but "I and you traveled" sounds weird.
It also depends on the verb too. "Me and you are..." is wrong but sounds OK (because we hear "me and you" as a phrase often). "I and you are" is technically correct (or is it?) but sounds awkward.
>>79894064
/thread.
Seriously fuck off OP.
>>79918484
You're an idiot
>>79914432
>The FBI has the legislative authority to change the law
Anyone just remember "Reichstag Fire"?
>>79918684
what's the problem kiwi? did I make the grammar nazi look dumb?
"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now." - James B. Comey, FBI Director
Related video that I really recommend listening to when you get the chance:
youtube.com/watch?v=HMi072Ae_0w
~
literally no one gives a flying fuck about some fucking emails
literally embarrassing what a big fucking deal this is made out to be
>>79918943
Except those words are bull shit.
Everyone who faced those sanctions faced LEGAL sanctions.
He makes it sound like you just get a bad review for the if you commit felonies.
Get used to seeing some form of this until Hillary has me killed for it.
Please help make lemons into lemonade.
Call the DOJ, put them on auto dialer, pay a neighbor hood kid a few bucks to call.
> pic related.
From everything that happened today, there is no reason not to convict her for perjury. She lied under oath at a congressional hearing.
That's a felony. They won't convict her on email. Fine, help me play 3D chess. Call them and ask why she's not under charges for blatant perjury.
It's your right as a tax payer. Get involved, Carpe Diem. Do something other than complain.
Shit just copy pasta the fuck out of my post, if you don't want to do anything else. If WE don't do this, who will?
#rigged system
MAGA
>>79918427
Well, start by investigating the Clinton foundation. There is shit way worse than the emails there.
>>79919389
fucking kek.
this is a perfect example of how obsessed left brained people are
>B-B-B-B-BUT ITS THE LAW S-S-SPUTTER IM SO MAD ITS THE L-L-LAW WRITTEN IN WORDS
>>79917531
> Trump's failed businesses
To be honest,Trump has had enormous success in business. Some of his companies have declared chapter 11 bankruptcy (restructuring, it's chapter 7 that implies a failed business), but that was due to market conditions (early 2000s dot com bubble bursting, housing crisis of 2007, early 90s financial scare, etc.). I know it's become a meme to say Trump is a failed businessman and that he has gone bankrupt several times, but it largely isn't true. Another note is that Trump himself has never gone bankrupt. It's been companies that his company (the Trump Organization) own that have gone bankrupt. Then again, it should come as no surprise that the far left doesn't understand finance.
>>79894005
>This will be the subliminal image next to every rack of Slim Jims abs Snickers for a fucking week.
>>79894240
tell your friend to kiss Hilary's feet
>>79918484
People regularly use pronouns incorrectly to such a degree that it seems to be the norm.
It really isn't that difficult if people just learn the difference between the nominative case and the object/oblique case.
"Me and you are" is wrong, but so commonly used that no one notices in daily speech. It should be obvious, because no one would ever say "me am going to the shops".
Saying things like "I and you are" sounds wrong, despite being grammatically correct, simply because it is common practice to place the first person pronoun at the end of a list of subjects.
Native English speakers will understand this concept with greater ease after learning a language with more than 2 or 3 grammatical cases.
>>79919321
If you don't understand the significance of this issue, I suggest you never think about or talk about politics again. Seriously, and please, never vote, either, we have enough useful idiots as it stands.
>>79919321
You should read the emails anon.
They're sickening.
>>79919527
Not an argument. Slow down, and think about what you want to say.
I'm not taking your logical fallacies add anything more than your inability to formulate an argument.
>ad hom
> strawman
Try again pleeb.
>>79919465
Why? No investigation needs to take place for perjury. It's agreed already by the investigating body that she did it.
I have no doubt that the foundation is illegal. Why chase fireflies when you stand in front of a bonfire? It's time for us to light the match.
Deus Vult, soldier, but he needs our help.
>>79919646
Check the date
>>79904644
cap this people
>>79919767
>"Me and you are" is wrong, but so commonly used that no one notices in daily speech.
this is because the way one hears a sentence, its like "me and" precedes "you" in the way "you" actually begins the clause.
its like hearing, "you are going to the store" which sounds normal
and "me and" tied to the beginning, but its like the "you" starts something over,
I mean, consider why these things actually happen if you look deeper into it.
"me and you" is so common because the alternative "I and you" sounds strange, forcing you to use "you and I" but then you're left with "I are"..."you and I ARE", "I are" doesn't sound right, "me and you" does because you begins the clause again.
I just hate grammar nazi's because they don't factor in at all a certain level of natural improvement or adaptation over time. not even mentioning the fact the same fucking idea is conveyed, I only respect grammar nazism to the point it clarifies meaning
>>79904644
>>79920100
man this is hilarious. I can't really describe concisely why its so funny but it does somehow condense to the fact that people really do not give a fuck about some fucking emails.
as in, there's this huge uproar about justice and law and all these high minded ideals that somehow blow up something past what it actually is
S-SHE USED THE SERVERS T-THATS AGAINST THE WRITTEN L-L-LAW NOW SHE CAN'T BE PRESIDENT
or........maybe its the fact that all of this reeks of grasping for straws? like the uproar in reality is because people REALLY WANT IT TO BE SIGNIFICANT.....and so they literally assign this huge injustice to something people just don't give a fuck about........
its just hilarious. hilary clinton is the most benign and motherly character. the public just sees it as her being an oldie who can't operate the tech
the analysts will be spitting the most vitriolic tirades against her "INCREDIBLY CARELESS DIGITAL ACTIVITY" and the american public is just falling asleep. because no one cares about some emails. its that simple, no one gives one flipping fuck about some shit she did that caused nothing of note. not in reality anyway. in the echo chamber of the butthurt maybe....
>>79894005
the third point is correct. looking at previous cases of mishandled secret info, criminal charges are only brought in situations where there is blatantly obvious intent. charging hillary with a crime would have been a huge deviation from normal prosecutorial procedures.
this article shows the analysis of past cases, and highlights the ones that did result in charges (and more importantly, the ones that did not)
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-prosecution-past-cases-221744
>>79920462
This is true.
Despite my flag, I'm actually a Brit and an English teacher so I have done my fair share of linguistics.
I will always choose "Me and you are.." over "you and I.." when I talk, but I would never write that. Much the same way as I excessively use the words kike, nigger and faggot on 4chan but not in school.
Grammar nazis can be annoying and condescending, but most people should be able to seperate correct grammar in writing from coloquial utterances, otherwise we are only a few generations away from having a society that deems black people twitter sentences to be acceptable. I, presonally, would not welcome a letter from the bank stating, "yo homes, dat shiet yus bin putin in da akownt haz ernts mor monais #richasfuk"
The only thing these scandals prove and is that no one will ever turn down an opportunity to be an armchair attorney.
>>79920462
Yet you can't punctuate.
Why put such emphasis on the words, if your punctuation is Shiite?
>>79915955
>False, this implies that she is receiving special treatment.
no, she is being treated normally. look at the past cases of mishandled secret info - not indicting clinton is exactly in line with other cases the FBI and DOJ chose not to indict.
indicting clinton would have been giving special treatment to the republicans (he is a registered republican and was attorney general under bush).
>>79921183
Really m8?
R e a l l y?
For reals?
Tell me how this case differs from hers, please.
https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/press-releases/2015/folsom-naval-reservist-is-sentenced-after-pleading-guilty-to-unauthorized-removal-and-retention-of-classified-materials#disablemobile
Pic unrelated. Thread requires tits.
>>79920021
Because nobody really knows about the foundation's shady shit. Bring enough of it to light to where even the niggers and cucked nu-males are demanding her blood and we can nail her under the law.
You idiots should be glad that the FBI did not indict her. It would set a precedent and future candidates would lose their election though the FBI when the right people agree to it. Besides, if the majority of the people want her as President despite everything, then she deserves the job either way.
>>79894005
ha
that's a good pun
>>79921516
the article i linked has numerous cases that show people doing what clinton did and not getting charged
>Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales took home “Top Secret” notes on the Bush Administration’s warrantless wiretapping program and later stored those notes and more than a dozen other highly classified documents in his office safe even though it was not authorized to contain such secrets. Justice Department prosecutors turned down the case.
>>79921733
Fuck that. You need schooling in the art of war.
> attack where your enemy is weak
That's all that is required. Her house of cards needs one hamstring attack. I swing a hammer by day, but my pen is fucking sharp.
Chase all the loose ends you like, this is an easy strike. The investigation is complete. The evidence is found. There is no doubt.
All that's missing is her being charged. While the lawyers play spin ball, we unravel the charity. No reason to climb to the top of the tree, when fruit is so easy to pick.
Start at the bottom and work your way up.
>>79894005
its just obvious why she's not prosecuted. She's too rich and powerful to be prosecuted. She is above the law.
>>79922058
Maybe the reason prosecution didn't happen was because the information was never released. Clinton's incompetence caused the documents to actually be leaked (Gucifer 2). Also, what about an obstruction of justice charge for Clinton deleting thousands of emails?
Holy shit you are ignorant. If you're this deluded, then there really is no arguing with you because you refuse to think logically.
>>79922058
I can find no articles you've linked.
I'm over the emails. I'm not arguing
that. I asked you to tell me why she's not charged like everyone who committed the same crimes.
Putting something in a safe =/= transferring it trough unsecured servers.
SHE LIED UNDER OATH. There is no argument for that. It's a felony. In the real world, this would disqualify her from working the cash drawer at McDonald's.
What is your point?
>>79922191
Anyone else super depressed at the realization that any faith that the public might have had in the FBI was sacrificed for this one indefensibly corrupt cunt?
Thing is, if somebody has done the crime before in that manner, then its bound by precedent to be judged the same way. Not American so I don't follow specifics but I'm sure that somebody's been convicted for the same crime before. Ergo it's clear she had something swaying the verdict.
t. someone who fell for the law meme
>>79894005
Ask him to define treason
as in the violationofallegiancetoone'ssovereignortoone'sstate.
(She took an oath for her position)
On top of tampering with evidence
And Lying under oath
How is she not, in the very least, being fired and getting her security clearance and privileges revoked?
>>79923453
OP was another one post fuck nuts.
Thanks for reminding me about evidence tampering.
>>79904057
how appropriate, you fight like a cow
>>79894005
>>the quote "To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions." shows that the normal course of action is administrative action, which cannot be done since she does not work there
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/05/27/mishandling-classified-information-leads-to-jail-time-if-your-name-is-not-clinton/
http://lidblog.com/double-standard-five-americans-obama-jailed-for-mishandling-classified-information/
What she did was illegal and if the laws applied to her, she would be in prison:
https://informedvote2016.wordpress.com/2016/03/18/do-i-really-need-to-worry-about-hillarys-emails-yes-she-will-be-indicted-full-form/
>>79894005
go look up executive order 13526 and tell him he's a dumb jew
>>79895646
Mishandling of classified information is against the law.
>>79894850
>'she didn't break any laws, but she did do some dumb stuff that she would normally be fired for
She actually did break a law. If I, somehow got hold of classified information, and then leaked it through negligence, but was not in any office or job, I would still be in jail.
Missing from the speech was that Hillary had SAPs that she should not have had no matter what.
>>79894544
In the united states, there is something called prosecutorial discretion. The prosecutor can use their own judgment regarding whether or not they bring charges.
It's national security. If you don't want that then you should be tried and executed for treason.
It does not matter if it was an accident. It does not matter if it was an email. It does not matter if it was a "lost" electronic device. She mishandled my country's classified information. I do not want a person like that to be president. I do not want a person like that to be anywhere near anything of importance.
>>79920900
>where there is blatantly obvious intent.
>go to lengths to install a private server
>hide emails from fbi
>lie to fbi about emails
>lie to the public about emails
>not obvious intent
Its very clear to me and many others that there was blatantly obvious intent.
