BREAKING Lorreta Lynch under investigation!

We've been saying that for a long time now. They need to go after Huma for forwarding classified eMails to Weiner, then cut a deal with her to tell all.

 

Who cares?

Just more delusionally-obsessive BS from RW Fever Swamp types who don't know how to handle winning.

Your side won. Get over it.

If anything comes out of this, please notify me when they dust off the lethal injection gurney.

 

I suspect Huma wouldn't roll-over against Hillary, something about their relationship suggests this. Whether the prospect of 'hard-time' in Federal Penitentiary could induce her cooperation seems plausible, but I wouldn't be so sure, I think Huma would go down with the ship.

 

What insults? You mean things like asking you to provide evidence for your claims?

LOL. Okay. Unbelievable.

 

and a total sham! Comey needed a way out so he came up with "intent". Lynch and the DOJ would have never indicted her anyways, no matter what the FBI recommended. We know that from the leaked email (document) stating such. Did she knowingly intend to break the law? Of course. Did she intend to? Of course. She set up a private server to get around the FOIA and for convenience. Clinton, Lynch, Huma and others will probably and almost assuredly get a pass on this and no charges will be filed. However, the investigation is still going on and things could change.

But intent is a sham. Anyone who has ever worked for the government or help a Secret (or above) clearance knows the procedure and knows the laws governing it. It is not something taken lightly and unless you reach a top position, like Secretary of State, you will do serious time in jail if you try to do what she did. I have seen people do time in the brig, out at sea, for much less. A safe with classified communications was left open, in a locked room, in the middle of the Indian Ocean and the poor Yeoman was about hung for it. When you are given access to the information that Hillary had access to and the communications and everything it entails, there are laws that govern it. She broke them and one could argue it was close to "espionage".

But she will get a pass because she always has and because her corruption knows no bounds. No matter what party she belongs to, this never should have been tolerated. So at the very least, I hope the government gets this type of behavior cleaned up and gets the information back into updated and secure servers and devices.

 

my original reply was in continued false claim of benghazi

 

That is not on IRS tax forms. He submitted this form to the FEC which is what the law requires.

Watch this

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/22/inside-trumps-finances-read-the-full-fec-report.html

 

Wow you sure like to change and twist what happened.

She absolutely did break the law. You can't bring yourself to admit it, but she did, and has thus far gotten away with it.

 

She has gotten away with it thus far.

The fact she was trained on what is and what isn't classified, and where it is and isn't supposed to be, signed papers stating as much, I'd say she absolutely knew. Her lies has kept her out of jail so far.

 

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/22/inside-trumps-finances-read-the-full-fec-report.html[/QUOTE]
Don't you have to state all the gross income on

dont you have to declare loans for possible tax breaks as well?
Are donations to charity tax deductible?
Don't you have to declare your gross income on IRS statements?
I understand the FEC declaration but that's not the same as IRS .

 

FBI found email that Lynch would do everything she could to protect Hillary from CRIMINAL CHARGES


http://therightscoop.com/revealed-f...uld-to-protect-hillary-from-criminal-charges/

 

I give you the courtesy of a detailed, fact-based reply, and you respond with hand-waving.

Concession noted.

 

I provided multipole videos completely contradicting your continued nonsense, and you respond with the continued nonsense.
The only reason HRC was not prosecuted, ,was because of the insanely corrupt Obama DOJ, and Loretta Lynch in particular.

That she broke numerous laws regarding the handling of classified data, (for which "intent" is not required to be in violation of), and lied about it from Day One, are not in question, except to the terminally foolish,

 

Let me help you..You can recite codes all day but it means nothing. My hunch is that you have no understanding of how espionage rules apply when practiced.. Comey was using precedent from former espionage court cases. His case not to prosecute Hillary Clinton was solid. I don't know why some think that Comey made up the intention part of his ruling.

"In Gorin v. United States (1941), the Supreme Court heard a challenge to a conviction of a Navy intelligence official who sold classified material to the Soviet Union on Japanese intelligence operations in the United States.

Justice Stanley Reed wrote the majority opinion and disagreed that the law was unconstitutionally vague, but only on the very narrow grounds that the law required “intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States.” Only because the court read the law to require scienter, or bad faith, before a conviction could be sustained was the law constitutional. Otherwise, it would be too difficult for a defendant to know when exactly material related to the national defense. The court made clear that if the law criminalized the simple mishandling of classified information, it would not survive constitutional scrutiny, writing:"

https://warontherocks.com/2016/07/why-intent-not-gross-negligence-is-the-standard-in-clinton-case/

Of course you can believe what you want without proof. President Grope Master does it that way. In fact for your false narrative to be true you , my post just gets in your way. So of course you'll have to dismiss it and pretend Comey just made things up even though but he was keeping with past rulings. Just keeping it real.

 

Gross negligence in handling classified data IS A FEDERAL FELONY, under several laws.

 

No you're the one who twisted everything. Comey's case was solid. He relied on precedent and rulings from the Supreme Court.


"In Gorin v. United States (1941), the Supreme Court heard a challenge to a conviction of a Navy intelligence official who sold classified material to the Soviet Union on Japanese intelligence operations in the United States.

Justice Stanley Reed wrote the majority opinion and disagreed that the law was unconstitutionally vague, but only on the very narrow grounds that the law required “intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States.” Only because the court read the law to require scienter, or bad faith, before a conviction could be sustained was the law constitutional. Otherwise, it would be too difficult for a defendant to know when exactly material related to the national defense. The court made clear that if the law criminalized the simple mishandling of classified information, it would not survive constitutional scrutiny, writing:"
https://warontherocks.com/2016/07/why-intent-not-gross-negligence-is-the-standard-in-clinton-case/

Of course many conservatives rely on flawed but simplistic explanations and conspiracy theories and you can't bring yourself to admit it. I'm just keeping it real.

 

But in an actual live rulings intent needs to be part of that for conviction and especially intent to harm the U.S. I have just proven that Comey used precedent from Supreme Court rulings. Other courts have required intent before trying espionage cases There are other determinations including how copious the evidence is. Just a hand full of classified emails from a bundle of 30,000 wont do it. Also there are disagreements between agencies as to what constitutes a classified document. Contrary to popular belief it's not a science it's an art.. This is another reason that espionage courts must consider whether intent is involved. But I'm sure you will ignore Supreme Court rulings and precedent which are real palpable things and just keep reciting codes mostly because you have to justify your false narrative and because your real desire is to slam Hillary any way you can. Hatred is not a valid reason to prosecute someone.

 

Analyst don't try espionage cases.

Of course Comey knew things that went beyond plain reading when he decided not to prosecute Hillary C. Most people don't understand precedent but that's exactly what he used. The question before him was whether he could prosecute based on the merits of the case. There are many things to consider. First agencies within the government did not all agree as to what was or was not classified. There were turf wars. That's one of the reasons a Supreme Court Ruling made "intent" significant in deciding guilt or innocence with espionage cases. Other determinations included how copious the evidence was. Just a handful of classified documents out of 30,000 was thin evidence (as Comey stated). Comey himself admitted he looked at some of the emails and they were difficult for him to determine if they were classified. But he had a long time to study them. A working Secretary of State would not have time to examine 30,000 emails along with so many other tasks. Again another reason why intent to do harm is so important.

But lets get down to brass tax. This proves that Comey was dead serious and realistic about his determinations. He was looking at the situation from not an analytical viewpoint but based on whether the case against Hillary would hold up in court.

"The Espionage Act was left on the books, however, in the years after the war it was used only sparingly. When it was used, it was often controversial because it resulted in prosecutions that civil libertarians believed infringed on press freedom and the right to political protest.

This helps provide context as to why James Comey insisted that intent was required to satisfy the requirement of 793(f). Even though the plain language of the statute reads “gross negligence,” the Supreme Court has essentially rewritten the statue to require intent to sustain a conviction.

In Gorin v. United States (1941), the Supreme Court heard a challenge to a conviction of a Navy intelligence official who sold classified material to the Soviet Union on Japanese intelligence operations in the United States.

Justice Stanley Reed wrote the majority opinion and disagreed that the law was unconstitutionally vague, but only on the very narrow grounds that the law required “intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States.” Only because the court read the law to require scienter, or bad faith, before a conviction could be sustained was the law constitutional. Otherwise, it would be too difficult for a defendant to know when exactly material related to the national defense. The court made clear that if the law criminalized the simple mishandling of classified information, it would not survive constitutional scrutiny, writing:"

https://warontherocks.com/2016/07/why-intent-not-gross-negligence-is-the-standard-in-clinton-case/

I will agree that Hillary was careless and stupid about how she handled her emails. But Comey using the Ruling from the Supreme court and other espionage courts knew all to well (based on precedent and the understanding of how the laws should be applied) that prosecuting Hillary would be a waste of time. If you have a problem with this determination you really need to take it up with Supreme Court.

 

Who leaked Flynn's name to the public?
Who at the State Department Office of Cyber Security and Office of Legal Counsel said her scheme to use a private Email server for all her emails met all the security and legal requirements?

 

Well when people take the 5th and a sympathetic DOJ gives every immunities and evidence is withheld and destroyed kinda hard to hold people accountable.
But tell me if Trump decides to use his own email system instead of the government system and his lawyers decide which emails to turn over and they totally detroy the others you'll be OK with that?

 

Don't know, but they committed a crime. They also performed a public service because it is quite evident that Trump would not have fired Flynn but for the information becoming public.
Don't know and I have no idea if that's a crime.

 

What influence and how did it or how does it manifest itself, give me some examples.

 

I still think it's problematic, perhaps even criminal given the statues that what ms Lynch conveyed in email rises to the level that we as a concerned public should investigate the assertion. Clearly, given the communication, there should be auditable actions that then transpired in the pursuit of her professed desire to shield ms Clinton form review while she was the AG. This is exactly the type of gross misconduct that should get prosecutorial review. It begs the question of her service to the nation. She is demonstrating partisan collusion in support of a crime. It rises to the level of obstruction. That our liberal friends are too partisan to admit that this is the kind of behavior that they themselves are unwilling to tolerate in others is astounding. To then attempt to whitewash this behavior by the left is abetting.

 

And that is putting it nicely. She is REFUSING to testify about her official duties as a public official.

 

So don't you think that should be investigated including congressional oversight to determine how and why the executive branch did what it did?

And that is pure conjecture on your part.