When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

@cicerone imposter,

Nothing there about anything being a crime.

It is a given that there are procedures that should have been followed. While one can argue that Clinton didn't follow procedures, not following them is not a criminal act under any law that I can find anywhere in the US Code.

The NYTimes story this came from says the following..

Quote:

Penalties for not complying with federal record-keeping requirements are rare, because the National Archives has few enforcement abilities.

You will note it talks about the National Archives having few enforcement abilities. It says nothing about any law that makes it a crime for the person that failed to follow the requirements.

Once again, unless there is a specific law that makes it a specific crime with specific penalties the government can't charge anyone with a crime for not doing something.

0 Replies

@Lash,

I think everybody knows you hate the Clintons, and they also know that no matter what, you will never abandon your fevered hatred regardless of what the truth may be. It's fine with me, I don't care who you hate, but I do care when you repeat things you really don't know are true or not. You repeat every crackpot rumor you see in the yellow journalists you prefer to read. Because bottom line for zealots like like you, the truth will never dissuade you from a desire to see the Clintons destroyed. That's a sad commentary on your humanity, what's worse, you don't even realize what an empty husk you have become. Maybe you have always been the person who loves to think others are as vile as your imagination can fester up.

I think that Hump Trump is a disaster, but Ill be satisfied if he loses the election. Well, I'll be walking on air if he loses. But if my most dreaded event happens and that narcissist is elected, I won't be making up crimes and misdemeanors and
bleet like you and the other sheep that he should go to jail. I don't like him, I
think he ill be a disaster but I don't want the nation plunged into turmoil because Don is a vulgarian. Ill wait another 4 years and attempt to vote him out. Your soul must be a withered piece of leather and I really wish you didn't enjoy hate so much. But, its you life and Im just grateful I'm not you. That has to suck.

1 Reply

@parados,

Its called throwing shyt against the wall to see what might stick.The republicans have been doing it for 26 years and have only convicted Bill of lying to the FBI about sex in the white house, once.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

Yep, and how many Republians had to resign in disgrace because they were carrying on affairs with other women while they tried to portray Clinton as a child molester. Newt, was the first to go.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
Some, as you say, require knowledge and intent. Other require only gross neglegence.

Really? Care to point to that specific law? Once again, I won't hold my breath. Wishful thinking on your part does not a law make.

Really! He trues to come off as so astute; so incredulous at our naive credulity - but then it is so painfully obvious he's just making **** up!

0 Replies

@glitterbag,

None of them are running now .

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

Wow, you waste such a lot of energy on things you say you don't care about!!

Hillary is a famous crook, and I don't want her to have access to the Oval Office. I'm just doing my part as a patriotic American!

You can thank me later.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Are you sure???? Lots of nasty speculation that Newt, the serial adulterer could be Donnie's pick for VP. But what the hell, how will one more candidate with the morals of a feral cat possibly make a difference.

1 Reply

If anyone is interested, CNN is presenting a 5 or 6 part series on the 80's. Right now I'm watching the glorious days of St. Reagan. Watching Beirut, the financial messes, the firing of the Air Traffic Controllers, makes me happy he no longer holds sway over the masses.

0 Replies

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

Are you sure???? Lots of nasty speculation that Newt, the serial adulterer could be Donnie's pick for VP. But what the hell, how will one more candidate with the morals of a feral cat possibly make a difference.

Here's the thing...
I'm thinking if Donald has the brains god gave a turnip, he will be trying to beat a strategic exit from this race - maybe even before the convention. There are growing numbers of republicans plotting to get him out of there by any means necessary. They are more than capable of standing someone else up in Donald's place. And Donald's seeing the polls show Hillary with a widening lead.

But...
We don't want him to go!!! When Bernie finally takes the stick out of his butt and stands aside, and when the Lynch Hillary hordes take the pause that refreshes - Hillary is going to commence to putting a historic whupping on Donald the cocksplatt Drumpf's ass.
I don't know about you, but I don't want to miss that. So I am just praying this mandarin orange tanned clown finds a way to stick it out long enough to absorb that epic stomping.

1 Reply

@snood,

From your lips to God's ear. I have to admit, I want to see him lose. Mainly because he is totally unsuited, and although I seldom take pleasure in others defeats, I'm looking forward to this one. During the 70's when the Watergate scandal finally drove Nixon to resign, I remember watching his departure on the tv and I surprised myself by feeling for him having this terrible humiliation. I know he brought it on himself, and the resignation was the smart thing to do, I just didn't enjoy seeing it. And I hated Nixon.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

Who do you think would be a good vp for Hillary. I'm liking Sherrod Brown from Ohio. Has anyone given him any thought?

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

I was strong on Brown, but they Kasich would appoint his replacement and the Dems would lose a seat in the Senate.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Quote:

Hillary is a famous crook, and I don't want her to have access to the Oval Office. I'm just doing my part as a patriotic American!

Hillary has been accused of being a famous crook without any actual evidence supporting that accusation. Sure she is flawed like all humans but I don't see any evidence of a crime when it comes to her actions.

It seems you prefer to allege things without facts. We have no reason to thank you for that.

0 Replies

@parados,

Here's a start 18 UNited States Code 2071 (I got this from a former U.S. Federal Attorney for California

“(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.”

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

It seems you have failed to highlight the parts that make it impossible for Clinton to have violated that law.

Quote:

“(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.”

There is no credible allegation that Clinton removed anything that had been filed at an office of the court or in any public office. It is asinine to suggest that her emails are covered under this law unless you want to argue that her server was an official public office and receiving an email counts as something being officially filed.

1 Reply

@parados,

You are once again selective highlighting or omitting elements that dont serve your prejudgments. Whether you do this out of stupidity or deceit I don't know.
=> Subparagraph one includes "any public office ....or any judicial or public officer of the United States". That certainly includes the Department of State.
=> Subparagraph two, in the case at hand, refers to the mass of official e mail traffic in Hillary's exclusive custody in her home server. By her own admission she failed to return messages involving "personal data". However it has already been established that a number of official messages were not included in those finally returned to the State department. It is interesting that this section also bars anyone found guilty inder it from subsequently holding public office.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

I'm afraid you're engaging in wishful thinking. If you also hate Hillary, just admit you can't abide her. You are not required to like her, and frankly you are within your rights. But you really don't have to split hairs in an attempt to criminalize her actions. You and I both know how dependent high ranking officials are on their IT support. The cabinet members aren't required to build their organization from the ground up any more than the Generals remake the Army or Air Forces every time they are promoted into leadership positions.

Col. Oliver North springs to mind when I think of criminal behaviour. Fortunately for Ollie, he received immunity for obstruction of a congressional inquiry and destruction of documents. Unfortunately for some of my colleagues, they were on their own paying outrageous legal expenses for helping Ollie. No pardons for believing Ollies lies and misrepresentations. Goodbye Intell career, hello unemployment and disgrace. Thank God Ollie had the means to avoid paying the price everybody else paid.

Forgive me for not getting overwrought about the server Hillary used. I'll bet Valerie Plame doesn't think it's such a big deal either.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

I'm not splitting hairs at all, merely quoting the applicable law and without the seloective distortions employed by the ever padantic and deceitful Parados.

I don't hate Hillary Clinton at all. I merely believe she is unfit for office.

Despite the obvious complicity of the President and the administration in whitewashing her actionsa, the State Department IG has already denied her claims that she vilated no policy and complied with all requirements. The FBI is investigating the possible criminality of it all while the Clintons continue their denials and efforts to get around the FBI.

I don't see any relevant meaning in your distracing remarks in the "building their organizations up bit" . It certainly appears that Hillary put a great deal of effort in buioldingg up her own organization within the State Department and isloating it from the department she led.

5 Replies

@georgeob1,

This should shed some light on Clinton's private emails.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/mar/12/hillary-clintons-email-did-she-follow-all-rules/

0 Replies

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know