So are they just going to keep making up charges to file against Trump?

[StmarysCity79]

Hell, old Jim Comey said it straight up, "Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."

Do you know why he said it? Pretty freaking simple if you understand the law, which you obviously don't. It is the law that "Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense, not capital, unless the indictment is found or the information is instituted within five years next after such offense shall have been committed." As it was known as early as 2009 that Hillary was using her home-brewed and stored server the clock for bring charges would have started once it was known. That clock died three years before Trump took office.

WOW. You really are dumb. There is no statute of limitations on the mishandling or sharing of classified information.

Even if that were the case then why did Trump and all of his disciples Chant Lock her up?

Knowing they were going to do no such thing?

So you admit they lied to you?

 

[Ken King]

WOW. You really are dumb. There is no statute of limitations on the mishandling or sharing of classified information.

Even if that were the case then why did Trump and all of his disciples Chant Lock her up?

Knowing they were going to do no such thing?

So you admit they lied to you?

Actually it is you that is dumber than dirt. Of course there are statutes of limitations and it is the case. As to why the chant, it was a freaking campaign ploy to arouse the base (and it worked). I am certain that it wasn't until after the fact that Trump found out that his administration couldn't do what Barry and Brandon failed to do. So was it a lie, doubt it, just a lack of understanding of the law - you know just like you.

 

[BOP]

You've been making crap up about Trump since 2016 and the whole Russia Hoax.

NOTHING you have accused him of had any substance and this doesn't either.

It's all a part of your TDS.

Go get therapy.

Therapy for her is Mob Town on the weekend, acting as Jimmy's wingman.

 

[DaSDGuy]

Please enlighten us or stfu

 

[BOP]

Orwell, Rand, Huxley and others accurately predicted that dirt-scum like SMC79 would eventually crush free men with their sheer weight. It's going to be an ugly transition though..one that SMC79 will certainly never survive.

How big a gal is she?

 

[Ken King]

How big a gal is she?

I heard that Lizzo is petite when compared to her.

 

[Gilligan]

How big a gal is she?

Typical St. Mary's Conny gal...shade in the summer, warmth in the winter and....er...I better stop there. Weird rumor I heard was she lives in 7D. Hard to believe that one, but....

 

[BOP]

Typical St. Mary's Conny gal...shade in the summer, warmth in the winter and....er...I better stop there. Weird rumor I heard was she lives in 7D. Hard to believe that one, but....

So literal shotgun wedding, then?

 

[BOP]

I heard that Lizzo is petite when compared to her.

SMC79: "Hey, Lizzo! I like bananas!"

 

[StmarysCity79]

Actually it is you that is dumber than dirt. Of course there are statutes of limitations and it is the case. As to why the chant, it was a freaking campaign ploy to arouse the base (and it worked). I am certain that it wasn't until after the fact that Trump found out that his administration couldn't do what Barry and Brandon failed to do. So was it a lie, doubt it, just a lack of understanding of the law - you know just like you.

My god. You will go to any lengths to not admit Trump lied to you.

This whole thing would be much easier if you just admit that Trump conned you and you made a mistake in believing a conman

 

[Kyle]

My god. You will go to any lengths to not admit Trump lied to you.

This whole thing would be much easier if you just admit that Trump conned you and you made a mistake in believing a conman

My god. You will go to any lengths to not admit Biden lied to you.


This whole thing would be much easier if you just admit that Biden conned you and you made a mistake in believing a conman

 

[Ken King]

This whole thing would be much easier if

Barry and Brandon had faithfully executed the law and had charged Hillary with her violations. But, as we all know, the Democratic mantra is that laws are only for persecuting those they disagree with and not actual criminals.

 

[StmarysCity79]

Barry and Brandon had faithfully executed the law and had charged Hillary with her violations. But, as we all know, the Democratic mantra is that laws are only for persecuting those they disagree with and not actual criminals.

How could Biden have charged anyone with anything when he was not president until after you believe " the statute of limitations ran out". ( it hadnt)

How could Obama have charged Hillary with anything when the investigation was still ongoing during the Trump/Hillary election?


If you believe Obama or Biden had the power, knowledge and a cooperating attorney general then you must agree that all the charges being brought against Trump are then appropriate no?


Where do you get this insanity and why are you freely allowed to post these lies with no push back?

 

[GURPS]

Where do you get this insanity and why are you freely allowed to post these lies with no push back?

Freedom of Speech dumbass

 

[Kyle]

Where do you get this insanity and why are you freely allowed to post these lies with no push back?

Funny. That's exactly what we asked about you.

 

[Ken King]

How could Biden have charged anyone with anything when he was not president until after you believe " the statute of limitations ran out". ( it hadnt)

He could have advised the President, could he not. Isn't that one of the expected functions of the number 2. And you sack of crap the statute of limitations had run out - though you are too dumb to realize it.

How could Obama have charged Hillary with anything when the investigation was still ongoing during the Trump/Hillary election?

There was no investigation prior to the statutes of limitations having expired. They knew she had violated the law, but they were protecting their own.

If you believe Obama or Biden had the power, knowledge and a cooperating attorney general then you must agree that all the charges being brought against Trump are then appropriate no?

That is just it, Holder wasn't going to risk being "Clintoned" so there wasn't an Attorney General interested in investigating Hillary's crimes.

Where do you get this insanity and why are you freely allowed to post these lies with no push back?

Insanity? More of your projection I see. Maybe there might be some push-back if I was wrong. Unfortunately, for you, it is your lies generating massive push-back and you are just too dumb to understand what is going on.

 

[StmarysCity79]

He could have advised the President, could he not. Isn't that one of the expected functions of the number 2. And you sack of crap the statute of limitations had run out - though you are too dumb to realize it.

There was no investigation prior to the statutes of limitations having expired. They knew she had violated the law, but they were protecting their own.

That is just it, Holder wasn't going to risk being "Clintoned" so there wasn't an Attorney General interested in investigating Hillary's crimes.

Insanity? More of your projection I see. Maybe there might be some push-back if I was wrong. Unfortunately, for you, it is your lies generating massive push-back and you are just too dumb to understand what is going on.

You forgot about the Republican FBI director Comey who was investigating Clinton even during the election and who said

"As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case."

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

 

[Ken King]

You forgot about the Republican FBI director Comey who was investigating Clinton even during the election and who said

"As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case."

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

Actually dipshit, I haven't forgot about Comey. Talked about him several times right here in this thread. His wordsmithing in this response belies the fact that there were no similar cases where a Secretary of State had knowingly, willfully and without authorization removed and retained classified material at an unauthorized location on an unauthorized device.

As to him being a Republican, that was in name only as his actions have borne out.

 

[StmarysCity79]

Actually dipshit, I haven't forgot about Comey. Talked about him several times right here in this thread. His wordsmithing in this response belies the fact that there were no similar cases where a Secretary of State had knowingly, willfully and without authorization removed and retained classified material at an unauthorized location on an unauthorized device.

As to him being a Republican, that was in name only as his actions have borne out.

So again. Obama and Biden had no way of legally charging Hillary as both the FBI and the Attorney General failed to bring charges and even recommended no charges be brought.

This is not Russia.

Presidents and VPs cant just charge people for crimes. Why are you advocating for a dictatorship and then on the other hand crying that Biden is personally targeting Trump.


You can't have it both ways hypocrite.

 

[Ken King]

So again. Obama and Biden had no way of legally charging Hillary as both the FBI and the Attorney General failed to bring charges and even recommended no charges be brought.

The President can direct the AG to investigate criminal activity. The AG, as well as all cabinet members, serve at the pleasure of the President and either do as directed or be fired.

This is not Russia.

Presidents and VPs cant just charge people for crimes. Why are you advocating for a dictatorship and then on the other hand crying that Biden is personally targeting Trump.

Well, duh! They might not be able to charge anyone, but they can direct an investigation against someone. And who is "advocating for a dictatorship"? You seem to be the only one doing that by agreeing with baseless indictments against free and protected speech.

You can't have it both ways hypocrite.

And neither can you.