When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ? Part 2

Jill Stein
5 hrs ·
"It cracks me up whenever I see pawns of the Democratic Party like Robert Reich try to argue that supporting Hillary Clinton is the 'realistic and practical' way to forward the progressive agenda. It always makes me wonder what reality they’re referring to when they call such creative fabrications 'realistic.'
Check it out guys, their 'practical and realistic' argument goes like this (I swear I’m not making this up). While it’s true that Hillary Clinton has historically been far to the right of anything anyone could rightly label progressive, and leaked emails have shown beyond a doubt that she is inextricably mired in and dependent upon an unfathomably vast network of corporatist corruption from top to bottom, what they’re going to do is make her President of the United States, see, and then they’ll try to get the Democrats control of the House and the Senate so nobody will stop her from doing the things she wants to do.
That’s it. That’s their whole entire plan.
I know, right? I guess in whatever imaginary fairy unicorn land these people come from, the best way to make politicians less corrupt is to give them more power.
Try asking them something like, 'Well, okay, that’s really really strange, but say we try that and Hillary doesn’t do the things we want her to do? What then?'
'Well, we’ll hold her feet to the fire,' they’ll reply.
With what? The Force? Your magic elf wizard powers?"

Well the NONPOLITICAL FBI just have reelected a republican house and senate and possibly a republican president. 11 days before the election the republican FBI released information that even they admit they know nothing about but that it puts Hillary in a bind and all the republicans a big talking point. The uneducated republican electroiate will eat this up. Myself I have decided to invest in guns for self defense so that when dOnald calls Putin for troops from Russia and China I will have something to defend myself with. All those militia people might be able to actually do something beside shoot their mouths off for a change.

My understanding is that the trial lawyers and the hundred FBI agents who did the actual investigation were unhappy with Comey's decision to not recommend charges against Clinton. They were unanimous in their judgement that she should at least have her security clearance pulled, and a majority believed that she would be prosecuted.

Yeah, it's easy to get 100+ people to agree with no dissent, so you're probably right.

Can you provide the source for your info?

Sure.

“No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute -- it was a top-down decision,” said the source, whose identity and role in the case has been verified by FoxNews.com.

A high-ranking FBI official told Fox News that while it might not have been a unanimous decision, “It was unanimous that we all wanted her [Clinton’s] security clearance yanked.”

“It is safe to say the vast majority felt she should be prosecuted,” the senior FBI official told Fox News. “We were floored while listening to the FBI briefing because Comey laid it all out, and then said ‘but we are doing nothing,’ which made no sense to us.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/13/fbi-doj-roiled-by-comey-lynch-decision-to-let-clinton-slide-by-on-emails-says-insider.html

Another anonymous Fox news exclusive? Try again.

Good call.

Don't like the messenger? Can't help you. Perhaps you would care to actually show it to be incorrect. I know you want to.

I imagine that it wasn't a tough call for the FBI agents and lawyers who investigated the case, considering it was a slam dunk that she violated the U.S. Code concerning the handling of classified material.

Thank you. That was helpful. Most Americans don't trust Hillary, but she seems like teflon when it comes to this country's .legal system.

You're welcome. I don't trust Trump or Clinton.

Case closed. Nobody gives a damn about Emails anymore.

Good. Then you can stop talking about it. And what you really mean to say is that you don't give a damn about the law. Anyway, I'll make my case:
_______________________________________

Clinton received training in proper procedure concerning classified material, and she signed a Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement stating that she did indeed receive this training.

By signing this Agreement, Clinton also acknowledged that she understood that she was legally bound to the details of its content.

Clinton then ignored her legal obligations as stated in the Agreement she signed, and was grossly negligent.

Clinton was aware that the U.S. Code clearly condemns gross negligence, which describes gross negligence as exactly what she did.

Clinton violated the U.S. Code and the Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement she signed.
______________________________________________________________________________

There is no disputing this. What is in dispute here is whether or not she should be held accountable according to the facts. The U.S. Code says yes. And so does the Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement she signed.

The FBI declined to prosecute because they didn't have enough to go on to prove it was intentional, see Comey's report. With that case closed, we can't afford to have Trump as President due to threats to national security, specifically his ties to Russia, and his announced intention to disband NATO and shift our relationship to Russia from one of preventing Russian expansionism to "mutual shared interest". Which means that it's all right for Russia to go into Poland with tanks as long as they give us something in return. We can't afford Trump the Manchurian Candidate to win the office of President.

When I was in the US Air Force back in the late 50's, I was investigated by the FBI as a background check before being awarded with a Top Secret clearance, because they assigned me to work with nuclear weapons. The penalty of getting caught sharing anything to do with our work on the weapons were 10 years in prison and $10,000 dollars. Do you know how many Americans had $10,000 back then? I just wonder what the penalty is today?
The 1955 $10,000 is now worth over $88,500 today.

Yeah, but Hillary didn't share any secrets with anyone, so that doesn't apply. Meanwhile, we have Trump telling us flat out he's getting ready to install Putin's foreign policy for America, which would not only be a disgrace but the worst capitulation to a tyrant American ever performed.

Yes, Comey took it upon himself to insert a nonexistent "intent" clause into the U.S. Code concerning gross negligence. When did you come to believe that he had the authority to do that? Gross negligence is not dependent on intent.

Bryan Nishimura was also found to have removed classified material and keep it at his residence. He was charged by the FBI and convicted. The FBI made clear that there was no malicious intent on his part. So Comey supports a double standard. Do you?

Yeah, right. That would be treason. But she is guilty of gross negligence.

The president can't do anything on their own. That's the reason we have three branches of government. A president can declare war, but it takes congress to fund it.