Jump to content

Recent Topics Recent Topics

Photo

Lock her up, lock her up !


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#41 CitizenCain

CitizenCain

    Super Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,918 posts

Posted 06 December 2018 - 07:56 AM

In other words, you don't think Hillary should be prosecuted for breaking the law.

 

I cannot believe if she was guilty of a convictable crime a Republican House and Senate along with a vindictive jerk like Jeff Sessions would not have pressed charges long ago. If you seriously believe (and I doubt you do) that Paul,I need a spine Ryan and Mitch turtleneck McConnell would pass up something like that I have a bridge to sale you.... 


I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any honorable Gentleman will question it.  -John Stuart Mill
 
 


#42 DallasRED

DallasRED

    GO NAVY!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,979 posts

Posted 10 December 2018 - 01:29 PM

Ok here is something for you to ponder. When I first started a contractor job for the Navy awhile back, it was my job to scan and send to the whole entire Navy Squadron....(hundreds of people) the POW. Well it was pretty shocking to me that it said it was coming from my private email, when I was logged into my GOV email and sent it out that way on the GOV computer. Now figure that one out. I wouldn't call it Secret info...More of a need to know than anything else. The only way to read GOV email on a private computer was with a CAC reader and most people didn't take one home.


Posted Image

"Why are some people such assholes for no reason but then are the first to bitch to the mods when the tables are turned" GO BLUE

"You judge me and think you know me, and I'm quite sure we've never met. You know nothing." MADEA

"NOT ONE DAMN ONE OF YOU HAS THE RIGHT TO TELL ME I CAN NOT FEEL THE WAY I DO." SOLO

#43 DallasRED

DallasRED

    GO NAVY!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,979 posts

Posted 10 December 2018 - 01:34 PM

29


The uproar was not the fact she had a private email.  The uproar was the classified information she sent using that private email.

That really annoys me since my husband is truly retired and spent over 21 years ACTIVE DUTY. How many AD years did you serve?


Posted Image

"Why are some people such assholes for no reason but then are the first to bitch to the mods when the tables are turned" GO BLUE

"You judge me and think you know me, and I'm quite sure we've never met. You know nothing." MADEA

"NOT ONE DAMN ONE OF YOU HAS THE RIGHT TO TELL ME I CAN NOT FEEL THE WAY I DO." SOLO

#44 El Zorro

El Zorro

    The Fox

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,699 posts

Posted 10 December 2018 - 03:38 PM

That really annoys me since my husband is truly retired and spent over 21 years ACTIVE DUTY. How many AD years did you serve?

20 with four deployments in war zones where we undertook direct and indirect fire.


Edited by El Zorro, 10 December 2018 - 03:39 PM.

Golly gee willickers.

#45 PUBBY

PUBBY

    Super Icon

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,506 posts

Posted 11 December 2018 - 01:54 AM

RE: 'forbidden material in an online chain' ...

 

What Hillary was guilty of is  adding a comment to a bit of material that in one case wasn't classified until after it was contained in an email chain.  In others, the classified material was added by others in the email chain which mean anyone replying to the message after the forbidden material was added was guilty if they forwarded all the earlier comments (including the one with forbidden material.)

 

One time someone posted a pornographic image on pcom.  Others, showing their disgust and shock, replied to original offending post therefore reposting the offending material.  I bulleted all the 'offenders' knowing that those 'just  replying' had not thought about what their replies had meant (copying of the forbidden material).

 

Doing so was a grossly careless act and I think the reading is that of some 50,000 emails in the account, only 100 in 13 chains or so had some issues.

 

Anyone with an IQ greater than 80, if presented with the facts, would understand that the bruhaha involving Hillary Clinton's emails was a gross exaggeration of the whole issue.

 

Yet while you complain about that splinter in the 'dems' eyes you ignore the log in DJT's eye  talking to anyone and everyone on his insecure cell phone nightly since his inauguration over the objections of the intelligence community which knows the Russians and Chinese are listening.

 

You need to open your eyes because the behaviors being uncovered regarding this regime are not troubling; they are provably criminal.

 

This all begs the question of whether you want to live in a country ruled by the rule of law or ruled by the hand of those who proclaim themselves above the law.

 

pubby



#46 El Zorro

El Zorro

    The Fox

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,699 posts

Posted 11 December 2018 - 05:57 AM

RE: 'forbidden material in an online chain' ...

 

What Hillary was guilty of is  adding a comment to a bit of material that in one case wasn't classified until after it was contained in an email chain.  In others, the classified material was added by others in the email chain which mean anyone replying to the message after the forbidden material was added was guilty if they forwarded all the earlier comments (including the one with forbidden material.)

 

One time someone posted a pornographic image on pcom.  Others, showing their disgust and shock, replied to original offending post therefore reposting the offending material.  I bulleted all the 'offenders' knowing that those 'just  replying' had not thought about what their replies had meant (copying of the forbidden material).

 

Doing so was a grossly careless act and I think the reading is that of some 50,000 emails in the account, only 100 in 13 chains or so had some issues.

 

Anyone with an IQ greater than 80, if presented with the facts, would understand that the bruhaha involving Hillary Clinton's emails was a gross exaggeration of the whole issue.

 

Yet while you complain about that splinter in the 'dems' eyes you ignore the log in DJT's eye  talking to anyone and everyone on his insecure cell phone nightly since his inauguration over the objections of the intelligence community which knows the Russians and Chinese are listening.

 

You need to open your eyes because the behaviors being uncovered regarding this regime are not troubling; they are provably criminal.

 

This all begs the question of whether you want to live in a country ruled by the rule of law or ruled by the hand of those who proclaim themselves above the law.

 

pubby

Those with a clear understanding of the laws regarding the handling of classified information understand what Clinton was doing is illegal.


  • ApolloBeachRetiree and mojo413 like this
Golly gee willickers.

#47 PUBBY

PUBBY

    Super Icon

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,506 posts

Posted 12 December 2018 - 01:03 PM

Those with a clear understanding of the laws regarding the handling of classified information understand what Clinton was doing is illegal.

 

I think the term is technically illegal kind of like the lady in the gas station who was accosted by car jackers and hit one with a door of her car as she sought to escape their nefarious intentions and ran away 'from the scene of an accident'.   Yep, she was technically in violation of the law about leaving the scene of an accident but self-defense seems a legitimate justification.  Not perfect behavior but also not criminal.

 

Having criminal 'intent' is a key element in most crimes and acts that may appear legal can be criminal based on the intent of the actor.

 

For instance, when Donald Trump, as president, provided classified material to the Russian Ambassador in the day after FBI Director Comey was fired, if it was done in payment or consideration of the Russians providing illegal assistance to his election campaign, that 'legal' act of the president providing classified material (The president can unilaterally declassify such material) would become a criminal act if it were a payoff for a bribe.

 

Context, frankly zorro, is everything.  If you don't grasp that, then you're education has been a failure.

 

pubby






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Recent Topics Recent Topics