BREAKING Lorreta Lynch under investigation!

Interesting web isn't it, but it does explain a lot.

 

Nice deflection.

 

Actual facts? Since Hillary Clinton was SoS she violated Executive Order 13526 and 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f) of the federal code making it unlawful to send or store classified information on personal email and Section 1236.22 of the 2009 National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). It is not a gray area, she was in clear violation.

Hillary Clinton also lied to the FBI and failed to turn over all of the devices and emails which is a violation of Federal Laws. She should have been indicted. She was being protected by the head of the DOJ, Loretta Lynch.

Those are facts. Sorry you don't like them but they are facts. You can spin it any way you want, but it doesn't change the fact that she violated Federal Laws and she put National Security at risk.

 

Nah. The inference is that you actually use, and are informed by said "non partisan sources". Ok, list them. It shouldn't take two paras of obfuscation and insults to get you there. Lacking that ability, it is laughable. Since I wouldn't use either "thinkprogress" or "breitbart", I don't seem to fall into the need to have you proffer your advice at all. So, provide your list. Perhaps you'd accept sources like the Economist? Salon? The Atlantic? BBC.co.uk? I'm unclear what you'd find "non-partisan" or "balanced. Only your input here can resolve this, so continuing to obfuscate now only undermines your own position.

 

Don't forget she was under oath with Congress as well.

 

You made this assertion already. I responded by quoting the actual text of those laws and policies, and explaining why you are wrong. You have refused to respond to that, merely repeated your assertion that she violated the law.

That's not how discussion actually works.

This is a new assertion. Please cite the actions you are referring to, and the law(s) you think she broke.

This is pure opinion. Which is fine, but don't pretend it's a fact.

This is pure fantasy, for which you have put forth no evidence.

No, they are not. Your unsupported assertions are not "facts".

And again, you simply repeat your unsupported assertions.[/quote]

 

The real deflection is responding to every poll which shows Trump has a high disapproval rating by talking about how the polls called it for hillary by a landslide (can't forget the laughing emoji) when, as you just admitted, the polls were very accurate.

 

Welcome to the world of arguing with PinkFloyd. It doesn't stop.

 

How is that the inference? Even if it were, how is it relevant? I am not insisting you use particular sources. I am not defining "balanced" for you. So my personal list of sources I consider "balanced" is irrelevant.

It is becoming more and more clear that you are trying to create an argument, rather than simply go out, learn more about the issue, and come back when you are better informed.

Since I'm not demanding that you use specific sources, there is no "this" to resolve. I encouraged you to learn more about the issue. Please do so. I recommended using sources with relevant expertise and no obvious ax to grind. If you think that is good advice, feel free to use any source you think meets those criteria. This is about you educating yourself, not about me telling you what to think and who to believe.

 

*Shrug.* If he wants to keep publicly destroying his credibility, I'm happy to keep helping him. Maybe he will eventually learn what a persuasive, evidence-based claim looks like.

 

Perfect. So, this was just an utter waste of everyone's time, as you've clearly demonstrated that you are both unwilling, and unable to proffer sources from which we could agree jointly that you'd accept. Seems purposeful.

 

I should not have to explain it more than once. She broke Federal Law. She lied to the FBI, which is a violation of Federal law. She smashed devices and withheld critical information from the FBI during an investigation, which is against the law.

When you work for the Federal Government, you are subject to their policies and their laws, especially in regards to email and IT security. She went around Federal Law and around these policies and shared classified information outside of secure servers and outside of government secured devices and knowingly shared information that was either secret or classified with those who did not even have proper clearance. Which is another violation of Federal Law.

These are not just failures to follow policies, these are violating of Federal Law.

 

....and she lied under oath! More than once, as I recall.

Thanks for the reminder.

 

It's a waste of time because you seem to think my saying "go educate yourself" requires something more than going and educating yourself. Here's an idea: go educate yourself, and come back when you've learned more about the topic.

Or not. Your choice. But it is hard to have a meaningful debate with someone who is clearly unfamiliar with the relevant facts and issues, and also uninterested in BECOMING familiar with them.

 

Of course it's not. It was the ONLY way, they could let her off. To anyone that handles classified info, it is undoubtedly clear she broke the law. It's a running joke in certain circles. You get training on how to handle it and have to sign your life away, to get access. She is just too big to fail. There are plenty of people who have been convicted of mishandling classified information and "intent" was not a considered factor. It's the act, not the intent that violates the law. The only reason she got out of it initially is because she knows when not to lie to the correct people. I have no doubt she never actually lied to the FBI though, because regardless of who you are, when you lie to an investigating official, they throw you under the jail for it when it comes to light (maybe this is coming?). Considering who she was, I am sure the conversation was directed so that she wouldn't have to lie as opposed to finding out what was the truth. Good politicians are experts at maneuvering around a direct lie. But I digress.

Lawyers have even tried to appeal their clients convictions, when Comey came up with this "intent" clause. They are all still in prison.

 

that thread has nothing to with the continued false narrative by rwers on bemghazi

 

It has everything to do with the lies Hillary told their family.

 

Post when I ever said the polls about Trumps popularity were wrong, you're confused. While Trumps popularity is low..........

New Poll Shows 96% Of Trump Supporters Would Vote For Him Again; Just 85% Of Clinton Supporters Feel The Same

Even though the people aren't as happy with Trump as they could be, they would still vote for him again over Hillary. That should tell you the Democrat party of NO will lose more seats in 2018.

 

yeah the 10 congressional investigations, official statements from the dod, yet you cling to false narratives. exactly how alex jones behaves

 

You're arguing something else. I'm talking about when Hillary lied to the family of the deceased. They told everyone what Hillary said.

You keep deflecting from that. Alt left extremists ignore the facts and only talk about what they care to

 

You should, however, be able to respond with logic and evidence when someone challenges your explanation. You have not.

I asked you to cite the specific actions you are referring to, and the specific law you think she broke. Heck, link to a news story or analysis containing that information. That way I can at least track down the specifics and take a look at them. Your unsourced assertions are impossible to verify.

True.

She clearly violated some policies. It is far from clear she violated the law. The FBI decided there wasn't enough evidence to charge her with that, so breezily asserting she clearly broke the law is a difficult claim to support.

This is not illegal unless it is done knowingly or with gross negligence.

And here you simply assert that she "knowingly shared classified information." THAT is what the FBI concluded they couldn't prove. So no, you can't simply assert that as a fact.

Is there maybe a reading comprehension issue here? The question is not "Did she knowingly share information that turned out to be classified." It's, "Did she share information that she knew to be classified." The FBI said there wasn't enough evidence to charge her with that.

So show that. Point out the evidence showing Clinton KNEW she was improperly sending classified information through unclassified channels. Because that is what determines whether she actually broke the law.

 

Maybe everyone who did the plea deal should now go after a full and complete pardon and demand their jobs back.

 

And now there is email evidence of her collusion....

 

I have. Your repeated insults and behavior is why I am through explaining to you how and what laws she broke. You just want to run around in circles and act in a pure partisan manner. So be it. But, you have never held a Secret clearance (or above) for the United States Government. If you did or even knew how these things work, you would not be making such absurd arguments and claims.

So, you can believe what you want or cite some mythical "intent" crap but a lot of people know better.

 

The question over intent is interesting, plain reading suggests there's no requirement to show any criminal intent, relevant statutes criminalize any unauthorized transmission of classified materials and this seems a sensible approach.

The applicable protocol sets different classification levels and authorizes receipt of classified materials based on the individual's vetting by established procedures. Classified materials are restricted to secured locations, are not to be removed, not to be copied, contents can't be recorded or reproduced. There are specific conditions to sharing classified information, such documents cannot be disseminated to others who lack specific authority to view them.

The military, intelligence community, law enforcement and State Department deal with classified information and have specific training for individuals who come across it in their jobs. Hillary skipped the training, signed off acknowledging she knew applicable protocol, her status and experience suggest she knew all about this.

We have evidence Hillary received and shared classified information in breach of established protocol, that she copied these materials and removed them from secured locations, that she sent them by unsecured means and shared them with unvetted parties.

Some of Hillary's improper handling of classified information may be excused, but so much of this can sensibly be seen as disregard. We also know her disregard for classified protocol caused actual harm, that very sensitive information has fallen into the hands of adverse governments and exposed intelligence gathering sources and procedures.

What I describe here is not speculation, these are conclusions based on the thurough review by qualified analysts.