When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

@maporsche,

Given that your post was idiotic it's hard to imagine how any response might not be tainted.

Obviously Clinton is legally "not guilty" and is entitled to a presumption of innocence in our legal system, but neither you nor I are required to presume her innocence unless we are members of a jury considering her possible crimes.

Powerful people skirt the law all of the time, and I've little doubt that you've ranted about this when it suited your ideology, but the fact that they can doesn't mean they are innocent.

Is that really too hard for you to understand?

1 Reply

@giujohn,

giujohn wrote:

HEY PARADOS...

I'm still waiting for you to give us the benefit of your legal expertise... Have you discovered the legal definition for "or"?

How about the legal definition for "writing"?

Do you even know what is meant by to shepardize the law?

Here's the legal definition of "writing"

WRITING. The act of forming by the hand letters or characters of a particular kind on paper or other suitable substance, and artfully putting them together so as to convey ideas. It differs from printing, which is the formation of words on paper or other proper substance by means of a stamp. Sometimes by writing in understood printing, and sometimes printing and writing mixed.
2. Many contracts are required to be in writing; all deeds for real estate must be in writing, for it cannot be conveyed by a contract not in writing, yet it is the constant practice to make deeds partly in printing, and partly in writing. Wills, except nuncupative wills, must begin writing, and signed by the testator; and nuncupative wills must be reduced to writing by the witnesses within a limited time after the testator's death.
3. Records, bonds, bills of exchange and many other engagements, must, from their nature, be made in writing, See Frauds, statute of; Language.

A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

INNOCENT. Until. Proven. Guilty.

Is that really too hard for you to understand?

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

Translation: I and all the other conservatives are going to hang on to this Email thing for dear life and we are never giving it up. Never!

No translation is required.

If you're OK with a candidate who has, at best, just barely avoided prosecution, so be it.

No doubt you were cheering Comey during his 15 minute indictment of your beloved Hillary.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

You're hopless

1 Reply

The fact of the matter is that the FBI director basically said that Clinton did violate the law but that the law had never been used to indict or convict anyone and he did not feel comfortable setting that precedent.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

You're hopless

That makes two of us then.

0 Replies

@giujohn,

Quote:

The fact of the matter is that the FBI director basically said that Clinton did violate the law but that the law had never been used to indict or convict anyone unless there was intent and he did not feel comfortable setting that precedent.

2 Replies

@revelette2,

I guess this means you agree with giujohn

0 Replies

@maporsche,

Not quite...

According to Black's Law Dictionary,

What is WRITING?

The expression of ideas by letters visible to the eye. Clason v. Bailey, 14Johns. (N. Y.) 491.

In the case of Naldi v. Grunberg, reports "The New York Times," Judge David Friedman stated in his legal opinion that email is the same as handwriting. The judge also stated that email is proof of a deal. Adding a disclaimer to an email may offer some protection from having the communication become a binding contract.

Are you familiar with the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act?

1 Reply

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

Quote:
The fact of the matter is that the FBI director basically said that Clinton did violate the law but that the law had never been used to indict or convict anyone unless there was intent and he did not feel comfortable setting that precedent.

No...he said the law has never been used with or without intent... But as Finn said thank you for agreeing that she did violate the law.

0 Replies

HEY PARADOS...

Are you having any trouble shepardizing the law... do you need some help?

1 Reply

@giujohn,

If we accept your argument about writing then a written list that contains the following words would be included under the law:

Milk
eggs
Folgers Coffee

Unfortunately for you, the law states specifically that the item MUST relate to the national defense and must be in the lawful possession of the person. That would mean that a person has to have lawful possession of the email. Are you arguing that Hillary's email server was lawful?

1 Reply

@giujohn,

Quote:

The fact of the matter is that the FBI director basically said that Clinton did violate the law

Oh, the places you will go when you make **** up.

Please cite the specific place where Comey said "Clinton did violate the law."
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

0 Replies

@giujohn,

Now we are getting into the details.

An email is a written document but the law requires someone have lawful possession of it before they can be charged with being negligent about how they handle it. The only way to meet the lawful possession requirement is if you accept that Hillary's email server is lawful.

0 Replies

@parados,

Are you purposely being obtuse just to be funny or do you have a real problem interpreting the construct of law?

You keep getting tripped up by the word or don't you?

And as far as Hillary's emails not relating to National Defense the question then would be:

If they weren't relating to National Defense or considered sensitive classified information why then has the transcript of her testimony released by the FBI been heavily redacted and can only be viewed if you have a security clearance?

Your argument is pathetic and any first month law student could tear it apart and I nanosecond.

Give it up you're embarrassing yourself.

(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

0 Replies

The following is the transcript of FBI director Comey.

excerpt: (underlined added by me)

Quote:

Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice:

In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.

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.

source

If she had willfully mishandled classified information, then he would have charged her. She didn't. End of story, or should be.

1 Reply

@revelette2,

Thank you for beating me to it I got a little sidetracked with something and didn't have time to look it up.

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know