Not Guilty!

Toxick

Splat
You guys are ****ing mean.


If you could just stop thinking about yourselves and your self-righteous smug satisfaction for one goddam minute: have you ever thought about how the media feels right now? All the emotional investment and time spent - all for naught? Have you ever thought about that? No. You only think about yourselves. Brian Stelter may be out on a ledge this afternoon and just how is Acosta supposed to show his face in the Press Room now?

Imagine, just for a second that you had a massive priapic erection for two solid years - TWO SOLID YEARS - only to have it go all rubbery and flaccid in one fell swoop without a climax. Just think about that you selfish sociopathic Trump-humpers.

And anyone who is saying that Trump is exonerated clearly missed Mueller's GLARING CONCLUSION that there is PROOF POSITIVE That Trump and his cronies obstructed all kinds of justice.



By saying that "He's not exonerated on the obstruction thing" it's clearly code for GUITY AS ****!!!!1!

Let the media just have that, you sheep kissing rightwing hillbilly mother ****ers.





Between this and Avenatti's thing, I may just die tonight. I hope so anyway.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
I agree that mueller should have made the call. The only explanations I can come up with is that he was told to let the AG make that call on the president, or that he knew he couldn’t indict the president. Either way he did a huge disservice to the American public. You do have two things wrong, I’m not a D and mueller didn’t giv us anything yet- Barr did.

Yeah, I remember intent, I brought it up when I said how ironic it is that trump is being cleared for the same reason Hillary was, intent.
Here's where you're wrong in comparing intent with Hillary and intent with Trump... Hillary intentionally set up a private server. She intentionally processed classified. She knew full-well what mishandling classified information is. She was guilty of intentionally mishandling classified. Another factor in her "intent" dismissal is we have the actual evidence to prove intent; with Trump, the only way you can prove intent is if he admits it to someone or to the prosecutor. This never happened; so, proving intent in Trump's case can't be proved.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
You guys are ****ing mean.


If you could just stop thinking about yourselves and your self-righteous smug satisfaction for one goddam minute: have you ever thought about how the media feels right now? All the emotional investment and time spent - all for naught? Have you ever thought about that? No. You only think about yourselves. Brian Stelter may be out on a ledge this afternoon and just how is Acosta supposed to show his face in the Press Room now?

Imagine, just for a second that you had a massive priapic erection for two solid years - TWO SOLID YEARS - only to have it go all rubbery and flaccid in one fell swoop without a climax. Just think about that you selfish sociopathic Trump-humpers.

And anyone who is saying that Trump is exonerated clearly missed Mueller's GLARING CONCLUSION that there is PROOF POSITIVE That Trump and his cronies obstructed all kinds of justice.



By saying that "He's not exonerated on the obstruction thing" it's clearly code for GUITY AS ****!!!!1!

Let the media just have that, you sheep kissing rightwing hillbilly mother ****ers.





Between this and Avenatti's thing, I may just die tonight. I hope so anyway.
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
Here's where you're wrong in comparing intent with Hillary and intent with Trump... Hillary intentionally set up a private server. She intentionally processed classified. She knew full-well what mishandling classified information is. She was guilty of intentionally mishandling classified. Another factor in her "intent" dismissal is we have the actual evidence to prove intent; with Trump, the only way you can prove intent is if he admits it to someone or to the prosecutor. This never happened; so, proving intent in Trump's case can't be proved.
Saying Hillary ‘intentionally’ did it and trump didn’t admit he ‘intentionally’ makes it all different. Thanks :killingme


Bottom line, Barr said he wasn’t pursuing charges against trump because he didn’t show intent,the exact same th8ng they said to excuse Hillary’s crimes. That’s some MAGA irony right there
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Saying Hillary ‘intentionally’ did it and trump didn’t admit he ‘intentionally’ makes it all different. Thanks :killingme


Bottom line, Barr said he wasn’t pursuing charges against trump because he didn’t show intent,the exact same th8ng they said to excuse Hillary’s crimes. That’s some MAGA irony right there
What exactly is it that Trump did, without intent?
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
Saying Hillary ‘intentionally’ did it and trump didn’t admit he ‘intentionally’ makes it all different. Thanks :killingme


Bottom line, Barr said he wasn’t pursuing charges against trump because he didn’t show intent,the exact same th8ng they said to excuse Hillary’s crimes. That’s some MAGA irony right there
You're not getting it - as usual.

Comey stating Hillary didn't show intent was a lie - an outright lie. Anyone who has worked in a classified environment knows this. You obviously have never worked in a classified environment; because if you did, you'd know for damn certain you'd be in prison for a very long time for doing 1/10th of what Hillary did. The only place I can read or precess Secret information is on a specific network called SIPRNET. If I want to read or precess Top Secret information, the only place I can do that is on a specific network called JWICS. These networks are completely separated from the unclassified network. No Secret or Top Secret information can touch an unclassified network unless it is declassified and approved for such release. We all know Clinton used stood up and used her own, unapproved, unclassified private server to do highly classified government work. THAT is a violation of every government rule mandating the processing and protection of government material; regardless of whether it's classified or not. She knowingly processed classified information - at the highest levels - on this private server; which constitutes mishandling of classified information. She knew she was doing this. EVERYONE that works for the government that is responsible for handling classified is given briefings on handling classified and signs NDAs to that extent. And they are advised under EO 13526 and 18 USC sec. 793, that mishandling classified (it doesn't even specify intent) would result in prosecution, prison, and fines. She also violated the Federal Records Act, for not properly storing classified information. Clinton knowingly did this. She fit every definition of intent. Comey's conclusions were a complete lie.

Now that I've wasted more time trying to explain to you why Clinton is guilty, and had intent to commit her crimes, please show me where Trump had intent to obstruct an investigation he knew would go forward regardless of what he did with Comey?
 
Last edited:

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
You're not getting it - as usual.

Comey stating Hillary didn't show intent was a lie - an outright lie. Anyone who has worked in a classified environment knows this. You obviously have never worked in a classified environment; because if you did, you'd know for damn certain you'd be in prison for a very long time for doing 1/10th of what Hillary did. The only place I can read or precess Secret information is on a specific network called SIPRNET. If I want to read or precess Top Secret information, the only place I can do that is on a specific network called JWICS. These networks are completely separated from the unclassified network. No Secret or Top Secret information can touch an unclassified network unless it is declassified and approved for such release. We all know Clinton used stood up and used her own, unapproved, unclassified private server to do highly classified government work. THAT is a violation of every government rule mandating the processing and protection of government material; regardless of whether it's classified or not. She knowingly processed classified information - at the highest levels - on this private server; which constitutes mishandling of classified information. She knew she was doing this. EVERYONE that works for the government that is responsible for handling classified is given briefings on handling classified and signs NDAs to that extent. And they are advised under EO 13526 and 18 USC sec. 793, that mishandling classified (it doesn't even specify intent) would result in prosecution, prison, and fines. She also violated the Federal Records Act, for not properly storing classified information. Clinton knowingly did this. She fit every definition of intent. Comey's conclusions were a complete lie.

Now that I've wasted more time trying to explain to you why Clinton is guilty, and had intent to commit her crimes, please show me where Trump had intent to obstruct an investigation he knew would go forward regardless of what he did with Comey?
Again, you saying she had intent does not change the FACT that she was not charged because they determined she did not have intent. You have no idea what the mueller report contains, and it obviously has some pretty serious stuff or mueller would not have included that part about ‘does not exonerate’, but you still BELIEVE that trump had no intent. That doesn’t change the FACT that Barr used intent as the reason he isn’t pursuing obstruction.

The irony remains, A deepstate minion let Hillary off the hook over not finding intent, and a deepstate minion left trump off the hook and justified it with the same reason.


Let’s see the report
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
Again, you saying she had intent does not change the FACT that she was not charged because they determined she did not have intent.
I'm sorry dude, but I just will not deal with this level of ignorance to the corruption that went on through the whole Clinton fiasco. I know how the world of classified works. You obviously don't and refuse to accept someone's experience over blind allegience to these corrupt people in our goverrnment. For whatever reason I can't explain, you are completely blind to the truth.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
The irony remains, A deepstate minion let Hillary off the hook over not finding intent, and a deepstate minion left trump off the hook and justified it with the same reason.
The irony is your failure to understand that "intent" is an element for an obstruction of justice charge and not an element for the mishandling classified information in a grossly negligent manner.
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
I'm sorry dude, but I just will not deal with this level of ignorance to the corruption that went on through the whole Clinton fiasco. I know how the world of classified works. You obviously don't and refuse to accept someone's experience over blind allegience to these corrupt people in our goverrnment. For whatever reason I can't explain, you are completely blind to the truth.
I’m not blind to anything. I’m seeing the ‘intent’ justification in both cases. You are the one claiming she actually had intent when trump didn’t.
It’s also funny you only see the possibility of corruption on one side of the aisle.

But the funniest thing is that you think you are the only one with experience in the world of classified information. Well that and the fact that you blindly accepting Barr’s ‘no intent’ as gospel despite the reportnot being released.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Intent is NOT a factor in being charged with mis handling Classified Information Comey made that sht up
 

stgislander

Well-Known Member
Intent is NOT a factor in being charged with mis handling Classified Information Comey made that sht up
18 USC 793(f), which I believe she was investigated specifically for violating, there is no mention of intent.

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
18 USC 793(f), which I believe she was investigated specifically for violating, there is no mention of intent.
It's was annoying enough that Comey fabricated that requirement. What's even more annoying is that he somehow didn't see intent in her actions.
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
It's was annoying enough that Comey fabricated that requirement. What's even more annoying is that he somehow didn't see intent in her actions.
I have a feeling a lot of people are going to feel that way about Barr and trump. So we are right back to needing to see the report so we can each make our own assessment.
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
18 USC 793(f), which I believe she was investigated specifically for violating, there is no mention of intent.
What kills me about all of this is that from the first day a newbie handles classified info that newbie has it drilled into him/her that it doesn't matter what you thought you were doing (intent, blah, blah) what matters is that classified info was compromised. And if so, prepare to meet your UCMJ (or USC or both) maker.

HRC's case is so cut and dry and so egregious that it boggles the sane mind that anyone would would see HRC as having an excuse. The law does not allow for excuse; it expects complete and total compliance (a good thing, for those following along, but having some doubts). What she did was inexcusable. She is, at a minimum, a felon; probably worse, a traitor. While I pray for her soul I also pray her body spends the rest of her life in Federal prison.

As an aside, there IS ABSOLUTELY ZERO parallel between whatever Trump was accused of and what it has been documented HRC did. NONE. ZERO. NADA. What makes this even less of an equivalence is that had Trump - as POTUS - given away classified info he could LEGALLY have done so (as the senior classification officer). HRC was not POTUS; she had no authority to do any of this.

It boggles my mind that there are people so brain dead or so partisan that they are coming to her defense. Rarely (though I would say, never) has there ever been such a clear cut case of felony abuse of classified material.

--- End of line (MCP)
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
What kills me about all of this is that from the first day a newbie handles classified info that newbie has it drilled into him/her that it doesn't matter what you thought you were doing (intent, blah, blah) what matters is that classified info was compromised. And if so, prepare to meet your UCMJ (or USC or both) maker.

HRC's case is so cut and dry and so egregious that it boggles the sane mind that anyone would would see HRC as having an excuse. The law does not allow for excuse; it expects complete and total compliance (a good thing, for those following along, but having some doubts). What she did was inexcusable. She is, at a minimum, a felon; probably worse, a traitor. While I pray for her soul I also pray her body spends the rest of her life in Federal prison.

As an aside, there IS ABSOLUTELY ZERO parallel between whatever Trump was accused of and what it has been documented HRC did. NONE. ZERO. NADA. What makes this even less of an equivalence is that had Trump - as POTUS - given away classified info he could LEGALLY have done so (as the senior classification officer). HRC was not POTUS; she had no authority to do any of this.

It boggles my mind that there are people so brain dead or so partisan that they are coming to her defense. Rarely (though I would say, never) has there ever been such a clear cut case of felony abuse of classified material.

--- End of line (MCP)
Who is defending HRC?
I agree Hillary should have been prosecuted. In fact I think she still should be. When are those charges going to be brought?


How would we know the parallels considering we don’t know what mueller found?
 
Top