Originally Posted by Guest

Intent is not required for some crimes, such as mishandling of classified information. And her ignorance of the law is pretty hard to convince, being she is a lawyer and being as she was instructed by the State Dept prior to her taking on the duties of SecState. And I am sure she was exposed to classified information as First lady and as senator. So, any excuse of ignorance is hard to prove. She was also told by the White House NOT to use her private server. She did so regardless and that shows the intent to violate. She also shows intent when she instructed her staff to remove classification markings and transmit them to her on the Internet, a felony. Any first year law student could convict her in court. She is protected right now. She won't see a court room until after the election.

Somebody that sounded like you told everyone intent won't matter with the FBI. How's that working out? niagara falls

Repubtards are scrapping the bottom of the barrel! Trump is in trouble and they are trying everything they can to make Clinton look bad! There have been (9) GOP led, onesided investigations done that proved no culpability on Clinton's part! So how much of the not responsible do these people not understand? Another Republican led witch hunt!!!

Originally Posted by Guest

There have been (9) GOP led, onesided investigations done that proved no culpability on Clinton's part!

that has nothing to do with a civil suit and what a jury decides.

The World Court in The Hague has tried GW Bush and Dick Cheney and found them both guilty of crimes against humanity in abstentia. If either sets foot in a country under the jurisdiction of the World Court, they will be imprisoned.

Originally Posted by Guest

The World Court in The Hague has tried GW Bush and Dick Cheney and found them both guilty of crimes against humanity in abstentia. If either sets foot in a country under the jurisdiction of the World Court, they will be imprisoned.

Apparently they never heard about "intent", did they?

Originally Posted by Guest

The World Court in The Hague has tried GW Bush and Dick Cheney and found them both guilty of crimes against humanity in abstentia. If either sets foot in a country under the jurisdiction of the World Court, they will be imprisoned.

WRONG!!!

You might want to read the last paragraph (Our ruling) of the link provided.

Are George W. Bush, Dick Cheney unable to visit Europe due to threat of arrest? | PolitiFact

Originally Posted by Guest

The World Court in The Hague has tried GW Bush and Dick Cheney and found them both guilty of crimes against humanity in abstentia. If either sets foot in a country under the jurisdiction of the World Court, they will be imprisoned.

Your favorite source " Snopes " says not at all true .

So what do you have to say for yourself now ?

Originally Posted by Guest

Your favorite source " Snopes " says not at all true .

So what do you have to say for yourself now ?

Obviously, you are one of the "useful idiots".

Originally Posted by Guest

Obviously, you are one of the "useful idiots".

You get caught in a lie, and your response is to start the 'name calling'...typical liberal.

Originally Posted by Guest

Intent is not required for some crimes, such as mishandling of classified information. And her ignorance of the law is pretty hard to convince, being she is a lawyer and being as she was instructed by the State Dept prior to her taking on the duties of SecState. And I am sure she was exposed to classified information as First lady and as senator. So, any excuse of ignorance is hard to prove. She was also told by the White House NOT to use her private server. She did so regardless and that shows the intent to violate. She also shows intent when she instructed her staff to remove classification markings and transmit them to her on the Internet, a felony. Any first year law student could convict her in court. She is protected right now. She won't see a court room until after the election.

You know nothing. There are RULES, break them and you're guilty. Whomever removed the classified markings is guilty. If she told someone else to remove the classification, she is guilty. ONLY the originator of the classified can remove the classification. She IS guilty. She IS being protected. We DO live in a corrupt banana republic.

Originally Posted by Guest

You get caught in a lie, and your response is to start the 'name calling'...typical liberal.

It's what liberals do...tell you you're wrong than can't show why. "just because" is a favorite "reason".

Originally Posted by Guest

You know nothing. There are RULES, break them and you're guilty. Whomever removed the classified markings is guilty. If she told someone else to remove the classification, she is guilty. ONLY the originator of the classified can remove the classification. She IS guilty. She IS being protected. We DO live in a corrupt banana republic.



It's what liberals do...tell you you're wrong than can't show why. "just because" is a favorite "reason".

"We DO live in a corrupt banana republic."

I suggest if you think that way then leave the country, I suggest you go to Somalia.

After all the name calling, at least we all agree Snopes is a reliable source of information. Thank goodness

Originally Posted by Guest

After all the name calling, at least we all agree Snopes is a reliable source of information. Thank goodness

No we don`t agree with you at all .

I just found it amusing that the favorite source of the Left found this particular claim to be too outrageous for even them to try to
twist into a fact .

Originally Posted by Guest

No we don`t agree with you at all .

I just found it amusing that the favorite source of the Left found this particular claim to be too outrageous for even them to try to
twist into a fact .

That's convenient when the site works in your favor. Some people on the left were were sucked into the rumors. They were wrong.

How about you and I work together and use Snopes to clear things up?

Do you have that confidence?

If you went back in back in time, theoretically, and my son was inserted into the Bengazi situation, I would want someone like Trump to be deciding whether or not help was to be sent immediately, because it would. Unfortunately we already know what Hillary would do.