Will someone please ask Hillary...

[Guest]

It would be safe to assume if you are Secretary of State, during your term you would both receive and send classified and top secret e-mail. Why hasn't anyone asked Hillary what provisions she made for these transmissions during her term. Could she honestly say she never thought she would receive any?
She continues to say she never sent or received classified emails, so what exactly was she doing on the job and how were people communicating top secret or classified information to her?

[Guest]

It would be safe to assume if you are Secretary of State, during your term you would both receive and send classified and top secret e-mail. Why hasn't anyone asked Hillary what provisions she made for these transmissions during her term. Could she honestly say she never thought she would receive any?
She continues to say she never sent or received classified emails, so what exactly was she doing on the job and how were people communicating top secret or classified information to her?When the investigation is over we will know what happened.
Or President Trump will explain it to us next year.

[Guest]

It would be safe to assume if you are Secretary of State, during your term you would both receive and send classified and top secret e-mail. Why hasn't anyone asked Hillary what provisions she made for these transmissions during her term. Could she honestly say she never thought she would receive any?
She continues to say she never sent or received classified emails, so what exactly was she doing on the job and how were people communicating top secret or classified information to her?

She is a scumbag liar, and anyone that has ever had a position requiring a security clearance knows this. Anyone in her position has to read daily intelligence reports that are addressed to her. Hundreds of them. Even if someone else briefs her, she would still have read some every day of her career. And she signed non-disclosure paperwork before she was even privy to any classified. She is a criminal felon and should be incarcerated.

[Guest]

It would be safe to assume if you are Secretary of State, during your term you would both receive and send classified and top secret e-mail. Why hasn't anyone asked Hillary what provisions she made for these transmissions during her term. Could she honestly say she never thought she would receive any?
She continues to say she never sent or received classified emails, so what exactly was she doing on the job and how were people communicating top secret or classified information to her?

But keep in mind she is and will continue to use the letter of the law to hide behind.

For example when she says she never sent or recieved classified emails she would/could/already has claimed that because someone who works for her "receives" them.

When dealing with experienced lawyer trained corrupted, lying, untrustworthy characters one must be as creative as they pretend to be about how they ask the questions.

Another example? She could command that someone be fired; an underling does the firing; she can and will state she did not fire the person.

With legal shennanigans it is part what they say and the other part is what they do not say.

She has years of experience successfully beating the system.

It will be a major black eye for anything that represents America if she gets off the hook for her crimes and gets nominated for president. She does not have that constant worn out smirk on her face as she wanders amongst her subjects.

For the sake of America's values she needs to be stopped in her tracks and prosecuted.
Sent home to be (or try to be Grandma Clinton).

She most certainly does not need to get off the hook and nominated as well.....how shameful for America.

A sign of how far our core values have degenerated.

[Guest]

"My accomplishments as Secretary of State? Well, I'm glad you asked! My proudest accomplishment in which I take the most pride, mostly because of the opposition it faced early on, you know… the remnants of prior situations and mind-sets that were too narrowly focused in a manner whereby they may have overlooked the bigger picture, and we didn't do that, and I'm proud of that. Very proud. I would say that's A major accomplishment."

- Hillary Clinton 11 March 2014

Can anyone guess as to what she said?

[Guest]

Anyone who has ever worked with classified material knows that there is no such marking as "Classified". Documents are marked Unclassified, Sensitive, Confidential, Secret, Top Secret.

My question is: Why on earth would someone with a position as high as Secretary of State NOT know by reading something whether or not it should contain one of the above mentioned classification markings? If she doesn't know what documents pertain to national security, then why was she even put in that position?

My point? She absolutely DID KNOW but didn't care. She was all about hiding facts that she knew would hurt her and Obama.

[Guest]

Anyone who has ever worked with classified material knows that there is no such marking as "Classified". Documents are marked Unclassified, Sensitive, Confidential, Secret, Top Secret.

My question is: Why on earth would someone with a position as high as Secretary of State NOT know by reading something whether or not it should contain one of the above mentioned classification markings? If she doesn't know what documents pertain to national security, then why was she even put in that position?

My point? She absolutely DID KNOW but didn't care. She was all about hiding facts that she knew would hurt her and Obama.

:agree:...exactly!

[Guest]

Will somebody please ask Hillary..... Well they don't have to ask they already know. People far smarter than we and me know exactly what she did how she did it and why. However, what one knows and what one can hold up as conclusive evidence supporting allegations in either a criminal or civil setting is a horse of different color.

The FBI gets one shot at Clinton and they do not want to mess it up.

Clinton and Company are artful dodgers with plenty of political cover in and out of the White House coupled with a very liberal press that does not want to hurt their queen. We have a DOJ that has run cover for Obama and company since January 2008 and in fact appears to assist Obama in his questionable pursuits.

Hence the FBI has been placed in a situation of performing miracles. They have some 147 agents dedicated to investigation Hillary's personal server and more importantly the probability (likelihood) that it was hacked. Only one person (Pagano) has agreed to cooperate with the FBI. will other Clinton staff members fold? Perhaps they are more afraid of the Clinton's then the FBI?

Honorable people admit their errors ask for forgiveness and/ or resign their positions. But most of Washington's political population are anything but honorable. So we the people continue to suffer fools.

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

Will somebody please ask Hillary..... Well they don't have to ask they already know. People far smarter than we and me know exactly what she did how she did it and why. However, what one knows and what one can hold up as conclusive evidence supporting allegations in either a criminal or civil setting is a horse of different color.

The FBI gets one shot at Clinton and they do not want to mess it up.

Clinton and Company are artful dodgers with plenty of political cover in and out of the White House coupled with a very liberal press that does not want to hurt their queen. We have a DOJ that has run cover for Obama and company since January 2008 and in fact appears to assist Obama in his questionable pursuits.

Hence the FBI has been placed in a situation of performing miracles. They have some 147 agents dedicated to investigation Hillary's personal server and more importantly the probability (likelihood) that it was hacked. Only one person (Pagano) has agreed to cooperate with the FBI. will other Clinton staff members fold? Perhaps they are more afraid of the Clinton's then the FBI?

Honorable people admit their errors ask for forgiveness and/ or resign their positions. But most of Washington's political population are anything but honorable. So we the people continue to suffer fools.

Personal Best Regards:

And the lazy, uninformed, could care less, keep the freebies coming lemmings keep re-elcting them.
As we become more and more outnumbered each year the hope of ever getting America back becomes a wishfull dream of the past.

[Guest]

And the lazy, uninformed, could care less, keep the freebies coming lemmings keep re-elcting them.
As we become more and more outnumbered each year the hope of ever getting America back becomes a wishfull dream of the past.

The social services provided to the poor are necessary for the survival of these people. You would rather let them be homeless and starve. Does your minister agree with your viewpoint?

Yes, you and your ilk are becoming fewer and fewer. Thank Goodness for that!

What precisely do you want America gotten back to? An all-white government, women subservient to men, or Beaver Cleaver's father getting drunk after work and beating on his wife who endures it because she has no other choice?

Vote Hillary!

[Guest]

The social services provided to the poor are necessary for the survival of these people. You would rather let them be homeless and starve. Does your minister agree with your viewpoint?

Yes, you and your ilk are becoming fewer and fewer. Thank Goodness for that!

What precisely do you want America gotten back to? An all-white government, women subservient to men, or Beaver Cleaver's father getting drunk after work and beating on his wife who endures it because she has no other choice?

Vote Hillary!

Why all the Ward Cleaver hate? Did someone steal your EBT card?

[Guest]

Why all the Ward Cleaver hate? Did someone steal your EBT card?

No, my EBT card is safe. Thanks for asking.

As you know, Hugh Beaumont was an alcoholic. It was quite common for husbands to batter their wife in the 1950's and no place for the women to go or no options available for them except to take the beatings. Also, it was very common for fathers to beat their children - not the mild spankings but whipped with barber straps.

Do you want America going back to that? Of course not.

[Guest]

The social services provided to the poor are necessary for the survival of these people. You would rather let them be homeless and starve. Does your minister agree with your viewpoint?

Yes, you and your ilk are becoming fewer and fewer. Thank Goodness for that!

What precisely do you want America gotten back to? An all-white government, women subservient to men, or Beaver Cleaver's father getting drunk after work and beating on his wife who endures it because she has no other choice?

Vote Hillary!

Funny how you can take a specific and turn it into a general statement so that it fits the point you want to make.....even though it has absolutely no relationship or meaning to the intent of the original post.

As far as getting America back to what some of refer to....if you have to ask....you have no :censored: idea and your attitude does not warrant any discussion.

And the icing on the cake of totally inconsiderate head up your a$$ ignorance is highlighted above.

And we also know you have no objective what so ever other than to bait.
Doesn't take much knowledge or understanding to do that.

[Guest]

No, my EBT card is safe. Thanks for asking.

As you know, Hugh Beaumont was an alcoholic. It was quite common for husbands to batter their wife in the 1950's and no place for the women to go or no options available for them except to take the beatings. Also, it was very common for fathers to beat their children - not the mild spankings but whipped with barber straps.

Do you want America going back to that? Of course not.

It is in poor taste to disparage the late Hugh Beaumont and his character, Ward Cleaver, and insinuate that one or both beat their wives without any proof. Some might suggest that your are the one deserving of a beating.

[Guest]

It is in poor taste to disparage the late Hugh Beaumont and his character, Ward Cleaver, and insinuate that one or both beat their wives without any proof. Some might suggest that your are the one deserving of a beating.You understood this woman's point. When Leave It to Beaver was popular it was more likely that when domestic violence occurred, men being physically larger then women, were more likely to get off on charges. You knew she didn't mean Beaumont in particular.
So what is your cowardly response.
Maybe the woman making the post should get beat up. You made her point.

[Guest]

You understood this woman's point. When Leave It to Beaver was popular it was more likely that when domestic violence occurred, men being physically larger then women, were more likely to get off on charges. You knew she didn't mean Beaumont in particular.
So what is your cowardly response.
Maybe the woman making the post should get beat up. You made her point.

Yeah, Hugh Beaumont was an alcoholic, therefore, he must have been a wife beater. Why else would he have been mention at all? Reference to him did not need to be made for her to make her point.

So, what was the purpose other than to infer that he was an alcoholic that beat his wife?

[Guest]

Yeah, Hugh Beaumont was an alcoholic, therefore, he must have been a wife beater. Why else would he have been mention at all? Reference to him did not need to be made for her to make her point.

So, what was the purpose other than to infer that he was an alcoholic that beat his wife?
Twist it anyway you want, you threatened a women that was giving an opinion, tough guy.

[Guest]

:icon_bored:

:icon_bored:

[Guest]

Twist it anyway you want, you threatened a women that was giving an opinion, tough guy.

And, you can twist my post anyway you want, I made no such threat.

[Guest]

No, my EBT card is safe. Thanks for asking.

As you know, Hugh Beaumont was an alcoholic. It was quite common for husbands to batter their wife in the 1950's and no place for the women to go or no options available for them except to take the beatings. Also, it was very common for fathers to beat their children - not the mild spankings but whipped with barber straps.

Do you want America going back to that? Of course not.

I'm sorry that your father beat you. Did he molest you also? And I am sorry that your poor choice in husbands led him to abuse you. But, this is about Hillary and her less than stellar qualifications for president. But, if you wish to discuss the abuse she received from Billy, I can understand.

[Guest]

The social services provided to the poor are necessary for the survival of these people. You would rather let them be homeless and starve. Does your minister agree with your viewpoint?

Yes, you and your ilk are becoming fewer and fewer. Thank Goodness for that!

What precisely do you want America gotten back to? An all-white government, women subservient to men, or Beaver Cleaver's father getting drunk after work and beating on his wife who endures it because she has no other choice?

Vote Hillary!

What a stupid post. How could you go from a discussion on Hillary to your fanatical, and hysterical blather on Social Services? And then to take the TYPICAL liberal tact of attacking religion, is just symptomatic of a very unhappy liberal troll.

[Guest]

And the lazy, uninformed, could care less, keep the freebies coming lemmings keep re-elcting them.
As we become more and more outnumbered each year the hope of ever getting America back becomes a wishfull dream of the past.

It IS over...the dregs have won, they've bred us out of our own country. Enjoy diversity. Now you'll get to see what a 3rd world country looks like.

The social services provided to the poor are necessary for the survival of these people. You would rather let them be homeless and starve. Does your minister agree with your viewpoint?

Yes, you and your ilk are becoming fewer and fewer. Thank Goodness for that!

What precisely do you want America gotten back to? An all-white government, women subservient to men, or Beaver Cleaver's father getting drunk after work and beating on his wife who endures it because she has no other choice?

Vote Hillary!

How about mandatory birth control? Or do you suggest we let them run free and breed as much as they can? Kids are nothing but an income stream to these "people".

Gee...exaggerate much? You act like before the 60s men ruled with an iron fist and used their massive strength to browbeat everyone, to get their way.

This country is collapsing, socially and financially. It started in the 60s when we decided that "equality" was more important than anything else.

No, my EBT card is safe. Thanks for asking.

As you know, Hugh Beaumont was an alcoholic. It was quite common for husbands to batter their wife in the 1950's and no place for the women to go or no options available for them except to take the beatings. Also, it was very common for fathers to beat their children - not the mild spankings but whipped with barber straps.

Do you want America going back to that? Of course not.

If all you "welfare people" in America, all 50 million, got into a single "soup line" instead of going to WM, that line would be 9,500 miles long!

And you know what...EVERYTHING worked better then. And no, it was NOTHING like you describe. A FEW men beat their wives and children, they do now too. Women are abusive too, in their own psychological way.

I'd rather see that then the hell hole our cities and now small town are becoming because of the minority invasion. Our government NEEDS a growing population, they import them because white people only have 1 or 2 kids, not enough to keep the population growing. Minorities have large "families", they have lots of children anyway.

The best of times are over...hope you enjoyed them.

[Guest]

How long of a line would the Walton family make?
How long would 40% of the US population make, 128 million? 24,000 miles?
The 2 groups have equivalent wealth but one person, one vote.
The best of times are over...hope you enjoyed them or we can try to make America great again.

[Guest]

Pretty pathetic to ostracize the Waltons. They provide an excellent eervice, and even if their wages are low, they do provide a lot of jobs that keep families off of welfare. And I have yet to see the government mandate that anyone must be employed against their will. So, it you have a problem with the Waltons, then don't take a job with them and don't make purchases from them. Personally, I have no problem with them. Sometimes they are more convenient than shopping on Amazon or Ebay.

And I have no sympathy for the lower 40% of the earners (or non-earners). If I can rise up from poverty level, then anyone can. There is no excuse unless you are handicapped. Not even age is much of a limiter today. NO EXCUSE.

The Obama's of the world are the ones that tell you that you can't do it.

[Guest]

Pretty pathetic to ostracize the Waltons. They provide an excellent eervice, and even if their wages are low, they do provide a lot of jobs that keep families off of welfare. And I have yet to see the government mandate that anyone must be employed against their will. So, it you have a problem with the Waltons, then don't take a job with them and don't make purchases from them. Personally, I have no problem with them. Sometimes they are more convenient than shopping on Amazon or Ebay.

And I have no sympathy for the lower 40% of the earners (or non-earners). If I can rise up from poverty level, then anyone can. There is no excuse unless you are handicapped. Not even age is much of a limiter today. NO EXCUSE.

The Obama's of the world are the ones that tell you that you can't do it.I'm just using somebody else's numbers. 24,000 miles goes around the world 3 times.

[Guest]

Pretty pathetic to ostracize the Waltons. They provide an excellent eervice, and even if their wages are low, they do provide a lot of jobs that keep families off of welfare. And I have yet to see the government mandate that anyone must be employed against their will. So, it you have a problem with the Waltons, then don't take a job with them and don't make purchases from them. Personally, I have no problem with them. Sometimes they are more convenient than shopping on Amazon or Ebay.

And I have no sympathy for the lower 40% of the earners (or non-earners). If I can rise up from poverty level, then anyone can. There is no excuse unless you are handicapped. Not even age is much of a limiter today. NO EXCUSE.

The Obama's of the world are the ones that tell you that you can't do it.

He didn't ostracize the Waltons. He made a point. The few Waltons have as much wealth as XX% of Americans combined. Many of those poor Americans have NO wealth at all, so the numbers rise pretty fast. Most of those poor are also minorities. They, all XX million of them get to vote. That's xx million votes to, what 10? (So, to counter that "inequity", the Waltons buy politicians to get what they want.)

Walmart, Amazon, or Ebay? Why not local mom and pop? You're not helping and you're creating more of those 40% you don't want to help.

What we need IS a government mandate, you want to eat, you work. Why do you think we attract and breed the lazy? We pay people to stay home and pump out kids. Are we crazy or what?

[Guest]

Will somebody please ask Hillary..... Well they don't have to ask they already know. People far smarter than we and me know exactly what she did how she did it and why. However, what one knows and what one can hold up as conclusive evidence supporting allegations in either a criminal or civil setting is a horse of different color.

The FBI gets one shot at Clinton and they do not want to mess it up.

Clinton and Company are artful dodgers with plenty of political cover in and out of the White House coupled with a very liberal press that does not want to hurt their queen. We have a DOJ that has run cover for Obama and company since January 2008 and in fact appears to assist Obama in his questionable pursuits.

Hence the FBI has been placed in a situation of performing miracles. They have some 147 agents dedicated to investigation Hillary's personal server and more importantly the probability (likelihood) that it was hacked. Only one person (Pagano) has agreed to cooperate with the FBI. will other Clinton staff members fold? Perhaps they are more afraid of the Clinton's then the FBI?

Honorable people admit their errors ask for forgiveness and/ or resign their positions. But most of Washington's political population are anything but honorable. So we the people continue to suffer fools.

Personal Best Regards:
You got the 147 agents number from the Washington Post which later corrected itself. But you still went with it, because it fit your narrative. Try to stay relevant.

. WaPo Corrects Report That Clinton Email Probe Involves Nearly 150 FBI Agents (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/wapo-corrects-number-fbi-agents-clinton-email-probe)

[Guest]

He didn't ostracize the Waltons. He made a point. The few Waltons have as much wealth as XX% of Americans combined. Many of those poor Americans have NO wealth at all, so the numbers rise pretty fast. Most of those poor are also minorities. They, all XX million of them get to vote. That's xx million votes to, what 10? (So, to counter that "inequity", the Waltons buy politicians to get what they want.)

Walmart, Amazon, or Ebay? Why not local mom and pop? You're not helping and you're creating more of those 40% you don't want to help.

What we need IS a government mandate, you want to eat, you work. Why do you think we attract and breed the lazy? We pay people to stay home and pump out kids. Are we crazy or what?

I am helping the 40% by shopping at Walmart. Walmart employs a lot of low earners. It also provides products at prices that allow lower and middle class income persons live at a higher standard of living. Don't listen to everything that liberals tell you. Why not use local mom and pop? Because I would be stupid to purchase the same product at a higher price. I am not a charity for the middle class business owner. When I donate to charity, it is for those that can't help themselves. Mom and pop are great institutions, but they can provide products for the upper class. My budget doesn't allow for excessive frivolous spending when there are better deals. Perhaps the Federal government should stick to that philosophy.

[Guest]

You got the 147 agents number from the Washington Post which later corrected itself. But you still went with it, because it fit your narrative. Try to stay relevant.

. WaPo Corrects Report That Clinton Email Probe Involves Nearly 150 FBI Agents (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/wapo-corrects-number-fbi-agents-clinton-email-probe)

Even if he/she got the numbers wrong, I believe the point is that there are still a bunch of FBI agents assigned to the investigation. Even if it is a hundred agents, wouldn't you consider that a large investigation, Chi?

[Guest]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Guest]

Would someone please ask Hillary........

If anyone told her when she took the position of Secstate that ALL travel itinerary of Ambassadors would be CLASSIFIED? If so, then ask her why she transmitted Ambassador Steven's movements/travels over an unclassified/open Internet system without encryption.

[Guest]

Would someone please ask Hillary........

If anyone told her when she took the position of Secstate that ALL travel itinerary of Ambassadors would be CLASSIFIED? If so, then ask her why she transmitted Ambassador Steven's movements/travels over an unclassified/open Internet system without encryption.

Because, she above the law. Rules, regulations, ethics and morals do not apply to the Clintons.

[Guest]

worth reading
10 Questions the FBI Could Ask Hillary Clinton That Would Benefit Bernie Sanders (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/10-questions-the-fbi-could-ask-hillary-clinton_b_9608306.html)

When is the upcoming interview?

[Guest]

Would someone please ask Hillary........

About how she can pretend to defend (as a lawyer) women's rights after attempting to get a guy off of a rape of a 12 year old, in 1975. She brutalized the little girl in court and managed to get a lower sentence for the pedophile/rapist. If she is all in for women's rights, then how does she explain her behavior in that court case?

[Guest]

Would someone please ask Hillary........

About how she can pretend to defend (as a lawyer) women's rights after attempting to get a guy off of a rape of a 12 year old, in 1975. She brutalized the little girl in court and managed to get a lower sentence for the pedophile/rapist. If she is all in for women's rights, then how does she explain her behavior in that court case?

There are other things she does that are much, much worse.

Unfortunately you chose to chastise her using what all trial attorneys do.....anything and everything that will get their client off....guilt has nothing to do with it......because of the training that allows them to do so without conscience is the very reason why we have so many problems in Washington....almost all of them are lawyers.....trained to lie, cheat, pretend, use, abuse and hide behind the law......

Do not vote for an incumbent and do not ever elect a lawyer for public office.

[Guest]

Do not vote for an incumbent and do not ever elect a lawyer for public office.

Or someone "sponsored" by the D or R party.

[Guest]

Would someone please ask Hillary........

Why the FBI has extradited a criminal hacker that supposedly hacked into Hillary's emails regarding Behngazi, to Virginia? Hillary is still laughing it up and assuring her supporters that the FBI is just doing a security audit.....right Hillary, right.

[Guest]

Would someone please ask Hillary........

Why the FBI has extradited a criminal hacker that supposedly hacked into Hillary's emails regarding Behngazi, to Virginia? Hillary is still laughing it up and assuring her supporters that the FBI is just doing a security audit.....right Hillary, right.I read that too. I wonder what they are doing with him.

[Guest]

I read that too. I wonder what they are doing with him.

Yes, I wonder........I bet Hillary is wondering also. Perhaps she has something more important on her mind than wondering how ride the subway.

[Guest]

Yes, I wonder........I bet Hillary is wondering also. Perhaps she has something more important on her mind than wondering how ride the subway.Do they need to prove intent?

[Guest]

Do they need to prove intent?

Yes, mens rea or criminal intent is one of the elements of a crime. However, it does not apply to strict liability offenses. So, the answer is YES it applies to Hillary's email case. Her defense will be that she had no intent to violate the law.

[Guest]

Yes, mens rea or criminal intent is one of the elements of a crime. However, it does not apply to strict liability offenses. So, the answer is YES it applies to Hillary's email case. Her defense will be that she had no intent to violate the law.That's not likely is it. Over the years I wonder how much money has been spent on her investigations.

[Guest]

Yes, mens rea or criminal intent is one of the elements of a crime. However, it does not apply to strict liability offenses. So, the answer is YES it applies to Hillary's email case. Her defense will be that she had no intent to violate the law.

Not true. There is no intent needed to convict on mishandling of classified material. You would only need "intent" if you wanted to convict for something like Treason.

SF312 that she signed: (partial)

"3. I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified information by me
could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation. I hereby agree that I
will never divulge classified information to anyone unless: (a) I have officially verified that the recipient has been properly authorized by
the United States Government to receive it; or (b) I have been given prior written notice of authorization from the United States
Government Department or Agency (hereinafter Department or Agency) responsible for the classification of information or last granting
me a security clearance that such disclosure is permitted. I understand that if I am uncertain about the classification status of
information, I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before I may disclose it, except to a
person as provided in (a) or (b), above. I further understand that I am obligated to comply with laws and regulations that prohibit the
unauthorized disclosure of classified information.
4. I have been advised that any breach of this Agreement may result in the termination of any security clearances I hold; removal from
any position of special confidence and trust requiring such clearances; or termination of my employment or other relationships with the
Departments or Agencies that granted my security clearance or clearances. In addition, I have been advised that any unauthorized
disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws, including the
provisions of sections 641, 793, 794, 798, *952 and 1924, title 18, United States Code; *the provisions of section 783(b}, title 50,
United States Code; and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. I recognize that nothing in this Agreement
constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violation."

[Guest]

When Leave It to Beaver was popular it was more likely that when domestic violence occurred, men being physically larger then women...

Well the women being physically larger than men today, is not really much of an improvement in my eyes.

STOCK UP ON AMMO!

[Guest]

I am helping the 40% by shopping at Walmart. Walmart employs a lot of low earners.

40%?
There are 52% on government assistance programs...you can't shop enough at Walmart to help them.

STOCK UP ON AMMO!

[Guest]

No, my EBT card is safe...Blah, blah, blah...Do you want America going back to that? Of course not.

She certainly is not wanting to go back to a time when you had to work to support yourself or your family.

The very reason Hillary can't lose! All they care about is that their assistance does not stop coming!

STOCK ON AMMO!

[Guest]

Will someone please ask Hillary.............

Someone DID and Hillary responded:

"On Tuesday, she appeared on the liberal morning TV show the View and expressed just how extreme she was again. When cohost Paula Faris wondered if Clinton’s abortion views meant that a baby, just hours before birth, had no rights at all.

Clinton responded with an emphatic “yes”.

[Guest]

Well the women being physically larger than men today, is not really much of an improvement in my eyes.

STOCK UP ON AMMO!

Ain't that the truth. Viagra sales are up, so the husband can get it up, for the fat pig of a wife who disgusts him.

She certainly is not wanting to go back to a time when you had to work to support yourself or your family.

The very reason Hillary can't lose! All they care about is that their assistance does not stop coming!

STOCK ON AMMO!

That's why Democrats have been winning. The minorities are beginning to outnumber us. We've given away the country to political correctness. I wonder if they'll be truthful in the history books when describing the downfall of America. "They were inundated by minorities until it all collapsed".

I doubt it, why start being honest with history now? That's why we keep getting screwed, the REAL reasons things happened in history isn't what's in the books.

[Guest]

40%?
There are 52% on government assistance programs...you can't shop enough at Walmart to help them.

STOCK UP ON AMMO!
I can't believe it. We agree on something.

They are on assistance because Walmart does not pay enough. Walmart calls a 28 hr work week full time. Walmart buys clothes from sweat shops directly. Once they investigate and find out it's a sweat shop using children they buy from another vendor. That vendor has the contract and sub-contracts to a sweatshop vendor all in the name of capitalism.
Attention Walmart shoppers while you are saving money you are also spending a lot of tax money and encouraging manufacturers overseas to hire children and the desperate for work people. When you get a contract with Walmart you have to guarantee the next contract will be even lower.

We're lucky we have a first amendment. I think we are heading in a very bad direction too. When enough Americans are starving I'm hoping Walmart doesn't say "We just rolled back prices on pound cake so Let them eat Sara Lee."

[Guest]

I can't believe it. We agree on something.

They are on assistance because Walmart does not pay enough. Walmart calls a 28 hr work week full time. Walmart buys clothes from sweat shops directly. Once they investigate and find out it's a sweat shop using children they buy from another vendor. That vendor has the contract and sub-contracts to a sweatshop vendor all in the name of capitalism.
Attention Walmart shoppers while you are saving money you are also spending a lot of tax money and encouraging manufacturers overseas to hire children and the desperate for work people. When you get a contract with Walmart you have to guarantee the next contract will be even lower.

We're lucky we have a first amendment. I think we are heading in a very bad direction too. When enough Americans are starving I'm hoping Walmart doesn't say "We just rolled back prices on pound cake so Let them eat Sara Lee."

And Walmart forced them to take that low paying job? Is it any of your business what they get paid? Where would those same thousands of folks be working if not at Walmart? Why aren't they working somewhere else?

The only reason you feel that we are spending tax money when we shop at Walmart is because of people like you that force us to pay higher taxes to subsidize the lazy.

You speak of the 1st Amendment and then scream bloody murder at Trump's language. Get over yourself and get a job to pay for all those other libtards. You are quite willing for everyone else to ante up to support lazy. Your turn.

You live in a supposedly free country and yet you want to ban Walmart because you don't agree with their business policy. If they didn't do well, they would be out of business. NO one is forcing you to do your business there. As a matter of fact, thanks to your liberal business regulations, Walmart is losing business and closing down some of their stores. Putting thousands out of a job and onto unemployment. Congratulations libtards. I hope they raise your taxes so that you can start paying for all the damage you all do.

[Guest]

Yes, mens rea or criminal intent is one of the elements of a crime. However, it does not apply to strict liability offenses. So, the answer is YES it applies to Hillary's email case. Her defense will be that she had no intent to violate the law.

So your expertise would have us believe if we get a speeding ticket that a reasonable defense is that it was not my intent to speed??

Just stop and think for a minute just how stupid it sounds if you say it out loud.

Nothing but lawyerly word smithing BS!

This thread needs replaced by something of value.

[Guest]

You speak of the 1st Amendment and then scream bloody murder at Trump's language.
I want to hear everything Trump wants to say and his wife. His language doesn't bother me, that would be hypocritical. I want to hear everything you have to say.

Otherwise how will we find the common ground?

[Guest]

I want to hear everything Trump wants to say and his wife. His language doesn't bother me, that would be hypocritical. I want to hear everything you have to say.

Otherwise how will we find the common ground?

Common ground?

Do you believe in:

Smaller government?
Balanced budget?
Not raising taxes disproportionately?
Free markets?
Gun ownership as a right?
Illegal immigration stopped and legal immigration welcome?
A strong military?

We could start there.

[Guest]

Common ground?

Do you believe in:

Smaller government?
Balanced budget?
Not raising taxes disproportionately?
Free markets?
Gun ownership as a right?
Illegal immigration stopped and legal immigration welcome?
A strong military?

We could start there.

Don't forget freedom of speech; i.e. having a different opinion than another without being called names!

[Guest]

Common ground?

Do you believe in:

Smaller government?
no
Balanced budget?
yes
Not raising taxes disproportionately?
depends--are you talking about a flat tax? or readjusting what we have now
Free markets?
yes
Gun ownership as a right?
yes
Illegal immigration stopped and legal immigration welcome?
yes
A strong military?
strong yes

We could start there.
Do you believe in:

Smaller government?
no
Balanced budget?
yes
Not raising taxes disproportionately?
depends--are you talking about a flat tax? or readjusting what we have now
Free markets?
yes
Gun ownership as a right?
yes
Illegal immigration stopped and legal immigration welcome?
yes
A strong military?
strong yes

[Guest]

Do you believe in:

Smaller government?
no
Balanced budget?
yes
Not raising taxes disproportionately?
depends--are you talking about a flat tax? or readjusting what we have now
Free markets?
yes
Gun ownership as a right?
yes
Illegal immigration stopped and legal immigration welcome?
yes
A strong military?
strong yes

Good! You almost agree with ALL the Tea Party principles.

[Guest]

Good! You almost agree with ALL the Tea Party principles.I'm certainly not ashamed if my principals are the same as theirs.
That's the common ground, the principles.

[Guest]

So your expertise would have us believe if we get a speeding ticket that a reasonable defense is that it was not my intent to speed??

Just stop and think for a minute just how stupid it sounds if you say it out loud.

Nothing but lawyerly word smithing BS!

This thread needs replaced by something of value.

Read my original post. SPEEDING is a STRICT LIABILITY offense. Intent is NOT an element of strict liability offenses. What law school did you attend?

[Guest]

Read my original post. SPEEDING is a STRICT LIABILITY offense. Intent is NOT an element of strict liability offenses. What law school did you attend?The Law School of Hard Knocks, football scholarship, center

[Guest]

The Law School of Hard Knocks, football scholarship, center

And, his/your ignorance of the law is apparent.

[Guest]

And, his/your ignorance of the law is apparent.

And this has what to do with Hillary's felonies? Intent is not a mandatory element of ALL crimes, you know?

Intent:

Mishandling of classified information - Intent not required

Intentional and willingly mishandling of classified information - Intent required

Negligent compromise of classified information - Intent not required

Releasing classified to uncleared personnel - Intent required

====================

Murder - intent required
Manslaughter - intent not required

Get it?

[Guest]

This intellectual and legal research exercise should commence with a brief review of the basics of criminal jurisprudence: There are two elements of a criminal offense: the prohibited conduct as defined in statute; and the mens rea or mental intent of the individual or individuals engaging in the prohibited conduct. Thus, to gain a conviction on a criminal count in an indictment, a prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) the prohibited conduct occurred, (2) the prohibited conduct was undertaken by the defendant, and (3) the defendant had the requisite mens rea or intent at the time.

Read more: Eight Laws Hillary Clinton Could Be Indicted For Breaking | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/21/eight-laws-hillary-clinton-could-be-indicted-for-breaking/#ixzz45XE5rrvp)

I didn't feel like reading the whole article. Does this apply to Hillary's charges?

[Guest]

This intellectual and legal research exercise should commence with a brief review of the basics of criminal jurisprudence: There are two elements of a criminal offense: the prohibited conduct as defined in statute; and the mens rea or mental intent of the individual or individuals engaging in the prohibited conduct. Thus, to gain a conviction on a criminal count in an indictment, a prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) the prohibited conduct occurred, (2) the prohibited conduct was undertaken by the defendant, and (3) the defendant had the requisite mens rea or intent at the time.

Read more: Eight Laws Hillary Clinton Could Be Indicted For Breaking | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/21/eight-laws-hillary-clinton-could-be-indicted-for-breaking/#ixzz45XE5rrvp)

I didn't feel like reading the whole article. Does this apply to Hillary's charges?

Fortunately, there is NO requirement for "intent" in the commission of many crrimes, as listed in a post above. I believe mens rea means that there is a knowledge of the law at the time. Remember the old saying that ignorance of the law is no excuse? Hillary can not clam ignorance of the law because she signed SF312 CLASSIFIED INFORMATION NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT. The only requirement of the FBI will be proof that a violation occurred and that Hillary was the perpetrator of the violation. No intent will be required for some of the crimes she committed. And I do not say "alleged" to have committed because proof is all over the Internet with copies of her emails. So, she is guilty of some crimes. Now, it is up to the FBI to present a case to the Attorney General, Obama's AG. The FBI can present indisputable evidence and the AG can decide not to prosecute it, or Obama can pardon her. Either way, I doubt anyone will ever see justice and the libtards will continue to deny that she did wrong. But, she will pay ultimately. If not now, then later.

[Guest]

"intent" as being used in the Clinton defense is pure and simple a legal wordsmith game. NOTHING MORE.

[Guest]

off topic

Woodward: Obama Commenting on Clinton Investigation "Proves We're In A Political Situation Now"
Woodward: Obama Commenting on Clinton Investigation "Proves We're In A Political Situation Now" | Video | RealClearPolitics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/04/10/woodward_obama_commenting_on_clinton_investigation _proves_were_in_a_political_situation_now.html)

I remember being in a thread not too long ago and someone made the point that the Bob Woodwards are not around anymore. He [I think it was a he] said that politicians are not investigated like before. I'm not taking sides, it's just that he called it.

Does anyone else remember it?

[Guest]

.... Congratulations libtards. I hope they raise your taxes so that you can start paying for all the damage you all do.
She is not paying any taxes (remember she has an EBT card), she could care how much tax you pay. She is holding out for a management position, has been making contacts at the local bar on a regular basis (you have to know someone to get the good jobs...). Hey if the CEO position at GE comes available; use me as a reference I can't think of a gal more qualified, LOL

STOCK UP ON AMMO!