Hillary's E-Mail (Breaking News: Smoking Gun Officially Announced)

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by Tiger in NC, Mar 12, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. sunnyjim

    sunnyjim Founding Member

    Already answered. They didn't need evidence that he intended to distribute anything, only evidence that he intentionally removed documents from a government computer. Hillary's emails were not removed from a government computer.
     
  2. LSUpride123

    LSUpride123 PureBlood

    No you said and I quote "CRIMINAL INTENT".

    They found none with him.

    You are a liar.
     
    shane0911 likes this.
  3. kluke

    kluke Founding Member

    WRONG. He expressly said that other people doing the same thing would face more consequences.
     
    LSUTiga and LSUpride123 like this.
  4. el005639

    el005639 Founding Member

    You are wrong, all secure communication is done over the sipr net. Any secure info on her server must have come from that network. And there is no link between the sipr and nipr. Therefore she or someone else under her charge did remove it. And to quote the last democrat president with a set "the buck stops here."
     
    LSUpride123 likes this.
  5. LSUpride123

    LSUpride123 PureBlood

    They don't understand the concepts of physically different networks.
     
    shane0911 likes this.
  6. shane0911

    shane0911 Helping lost idiots find their village

    Nor has "intent" ever been an issue when it deals with sensitive material. I've said before that they court martialed Clayton Lonetree for giving a Russian hooker (spy) info she could have gotten off the directory of the embassy lobby wall.
     
    LSUpride123 likes this.
  7. sunnyjim

    sunnyjim Founding Member

    Where does it say that?
     
  8. sunnyjim

    sunnyjim Founding Member

    Ah, your usual resignation.
     
  9. sunnyjim

    sunnyjim Founding Member

    When did he say that?

    Here is what he said..."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." Do you understand? He's saying that if she was still an employee of the State Department she might be subject to departmental rules, but that it is not a crime.
     
  10. LSUpride123

    LSUpride123 PureBlood

    [​IMG]
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page