Hillary May Be Charged Within 60 Days

[Bowfinger]

You boys are going to be crushed if, as expected, the FBI finds there is no substance behind your Fox-fueled fairy tales. Speculation and innuendo, packaged as fact and sold to weak-minded rubes. Oh well, you can always take another lap on the Benghazi-go-round. This time for sure, mirite?

 

[ivwshane]

Lol! I searched for that code too and I found the same thing you did and I was thinking there is no way that poster is that fucking stupid, surely there must be another document he is referring to.

Clearly I was wrong.

That dittoheads are among the worst of the legions of gullible fools who mindlessly swallow this noise. First of all, Rush's "18 US Code 107" addresses Seamen and Stowaways. (Insert your own joke here.) It's just the latest example of how Limbaugh is absolutely full of shit, and only morons take anything he says seriously.

The chapter he's referring to is actually 18 U.S. Code § 2071. The key word you and Rush miss is that it refers to the UNLAWFUL destruction of records that have been filed. Let that sink in a bit: "Whoever willfully and unlawfully ..." Managing one's email is perfectly lawful as long any official records are preserved as required.

This is just common sense. Limbaugh's spin, that any document destruction is illegal, is painfully, obviously stupid. It should take all of about a nanosecond of critical thinking to recognize this. If it were true, government agencies would have no trash cans or shredders, and would require infinitely growing physical and electronic storage. (Hint: that's absurd, and it sure isn't reality.)

Do America a favor and learn to think for yourself. Stop letting propagandists do your thinking for you.

 

[buckshot24]

I fully agree that Hillary "will not be able to survive as an attorney general" after this. In fact, I'm surprised she hasn't already resigned. Oh, wait . . .

Hillary never was AG. This was talking about Loretta Lynch.

 

[Fern]

That dittoheads are among the worst of the legions of gullible fools who mindlessly swallow this noise. First of all, Rush's "18 US Code 107" addresses Seamen and Stowaways. (Insert your own joke here.) It's just the latest example of how Limbaugh is absolutely full of shit, and only morons take anything he says seriously.

I don't understand why you brought up Limbaugh, but it appears he merely made a typo in an article I found googling. (You lib/proggy types sure do spend a lot of time listening to him.)

The correct citation is "18 US Code 101". I.e,. s/b a "1" instead of the "7".

The chapter he's referring to is actually 18 U.S. Code § 2071.

No. If you're going to lecture on how to cite laws/statutes you should at least understand it. (While yours works, it's substituting chapters for sections without so disclosing.)

"18" is known as the "Title".

"101" is the "chapter".

"2071" is the 'section".

The key word you and Rush miss is that it refers to the UNLAWFUL destruction of records that have been filed.

Section 2071 specifies the penalty/fine for violation of the law. Pointing out the (redundant) term "unlawful" as significant is silly and unimportant. We're all pretty sure that 'lawful" destruction of records doesn't carry any fine or penalty because, well, they're lawful.

The 'missing statute' here in this discussion is likely Title 44, Chapter 31, §3101 (Records management by agency heads; general duties). If she's been found to violate that then we refer to section 2071 for the penalty, as the poster and Limbaugh (I guess) have aptly pointed out.

Fern

 

[Fern]

-snip-

Clearly I was wrong.

Congrats! Your first correct post. Too bad it took +15 years.

(If you had any clue you would have quickly realized the typo in the citation.)

Fern

 

[Fern]

Hillary never was AG. This was talking about Loretta Lynch.

I don't speak for him, but my guess upon seeing it was that he meant Sec of state.

Fern

 

[Telgin]

Question.......If Hillary Clinton can win the presidency with five intelligence agencies sifting through her private server email (allegedly a National Security threat), why is Edward Snowden forced to live outside the U.S.?

Hillary may well have done irreparable harm to our National Security,(if hacked), and Snowden has done nothing to harm our security. He may have bolstered it. Just look at the discussion surrounding internal spying these days.......

 

[compuwiz1]

18 U.S.C. 798 - Disclosure of classified information
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2011-title18/USCODE-2011-title18-partI-chap37-sec798

There's a .pdf there for your reading.

 

[ivwshane]

Congrats! Your first correct post. Too bad it took +15 years.

(If you had any clue you would have quickly realized the typo in the citation.)

Fern

Why would I recognize a typo from someone citing a regulation with no links to said citation?

Congrats on finishing your journey to stupidty, you've finally reached the peak!

 

[ivwshane]

Question.......If Hillary Clinton can win the presidency with five intelligence agencies sifting through her private server email (allegedly a National Security threat), why is Edward Snowden forced to live outside the U.S.?

Hillary may well have done irreparable harm to our National Security,(if hacked), and Snowden has done nothing to harm our security. He may have bolstered it. Just look at the discussion surrounding internal spying these days.......

Are you so stupid that you don't see the difference? You clearly have no idea what Snowden leaked.

Now if you wanted to argue about whistle blower protection you might have a point, instead you went all partisan and now you look like a fool.

 

[ivwshane]

18 U.S.C. 798 - Disclosure of classified information
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2011-title18/USCODE-2011-title18-partI-chap37-sec798

There's a .pdf there for your reading.

Thanks for the link! So what, from that document, is Hilary possibly guilty of? Please be specific.

 

[Bowfinger]

I don't understand why you brought up Limbaugh, but it appears he merely made a typo in an article I found googling. (You lib/proggy types sure do spend a lot of time listening to him.)

The correct citation is "18 US Code 101". I.e,. s/b a "1" instead of the "7".

Because Limbaugh is where Telgin got his misinformation. If you check the exact quote Telgin posted (and failed to credit), it tracks back to the Limbaugh rant I linked.

No. If you're going to lecture on how to cite laws/statutes you should at least understand it. (While yours works, it's substituting chapters for sections without so disclosing.)

"18" is known as the "Title".

"101" is the "chapter".

"2071" is the 'section".

The point you're ignoring is not only was Limbaugh's spin wrong, but he couldn't even get the basic citation right. You excel at evading such points with duhversionary nitpicking. Nobody is impressed. Nobody is fooled. Nobody cares.

Section 2071 specifies the penalty/fine for violation of the law. Pointing out the (redundant) term "unlawful" as significant is silly and unimportant. We're all pretty sure that 'lawful" destruction of records doesn't carry any fine or penalty because, well, they're lawful. ...

You should explain that to Telgin, because he clearly believed otherwise. I'd suggest you explain it to Limbaugh as well, but I suspect he understands he's lying. Limbaugh knows his success is built on telling the rubes the lies they want to hear.

 

[Bowfinger]

Thanks for the link! So what, from that document, is Hilary possibly guilty of? Please be specific.

Good luck with that. Fox has sold them Clinton is obviously guilty of ... things. Really bad things. Truly. Trust them.

 

[compuwiz1]

Good luck with that. Fox has sold them Clinton is obviously guilty of ... things. Really bad things. Truly. Trust them.

Rawwwwwk.....Fox News! You fucking Parrots.

 

[buckshot24]

I don't speak for him, but my guess upon seeing it was that he meant Sec of state.

Fern

The article mentions an attorney general being pressured. I don't think you're right, he was referring to that.

 

[nickqt]

Rawwwwwk.....Fox News! You fucking Parrots.

Wow. The sheer amount of projection and cognitive dissonance in that comment is breathtaking.

 

[Artdeco]

You know, I'm not a fan of hers, but I don't think she'll ever be charged.

 

[Bowfinger]

Rawwwwwk.....Fox News! You fucking Parrots.

I personally don't care which of the dishonest wing-nut propaganda outlets you swill to maintain your bubble. The fact remains that your insinuation Clinton disclosed classified information is one of their standard talking points. Ultimately, it doesn't matter which dishonest wing-nut propaganda outlet fed you that point, but I do feel it's important to point out it came from a dishonest wing-nut propaganda outlet. I use "Fox" as a catch-all substitute for your source since it gets tiresome typing "dishonest wing-nut propaganda outlets" over and over. If this offends you, please tell me which dishonest wing-nut propaganda outlets you prefer to be disinformed by; I'll try to remember to type it for you instead of "Fox."

While I'm here, I'll also point out that you ignored Ivwshane's challenge to tell us, "what, from that document, is Hillary possibly guilty of? Please be specific." This surprises nobody.

 

[Moonbeam]

Just as with aversion therapy, a conditioned response with negative life consequences can be deconditioned, treatment our CBD friends here in are deeply in need of receiving, in the same way, sick autonomic response can be strengthened or generated whole cloth by constant reinforcement. Any who watch or listen to the mad rantings of right wing political pundits are liable to a very serious mental illness. The CBD that infects modern America's right is a mass psychosis generated and imbedded by fear and loathing of the demonized other, a huddling clutch of cowering psychos whose job is to prevent the ejection of money from power, to maintain the imbalance of the status quo.

 

[Jhhnn]

You know, I'm not a fan of hers, but I don't think she'll ever be charged.

That's because, in the end, there will be no reason to do so. It's just the latest in a long string of smear campaigns waged from the right wing.

It keeps the faithful clutching their rosary beads & spreads the FUD, serves as distraction from real issues. It's Repubs exploiting Brandolini's Law, as always.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

So it may be Bernie. And worse Trump is gaining ground. Perpare for Retard Bowl 2016.

 

[boomerang]

You know, I'm not a fan of hers, but I don't think she'll ever be charged.

I very much hope that she is. We, as a nation, very much need to start holding the political class responsible for their actions. She signed the document as required that stated how classified information was to be treated and along with that signed acknowledging that she had been briefed on same. She then went on to haphazardly and with little concern deal with information and then lied repeatedly stating that she hadn't. That briefly sums it up. 1200 documents is the last count I saw IIRC and I believe there are more documents unreleased at this point.

She has broken the law and on a serious level. She needs to be charged and tried for that. We either decide the law applies to us all or we continue the move towards the law applies to us only if we agree with the law.

I do find it interesting to see how societies move towards their downfall. History shows us nations and civilizations that have collapsed and it's sometimes difficult to comprehend how a people could have allowed it to happen. But when you're right in the midst of it, it becomes clear. Public sentiment is manipulated by people that have gained enormous power. If we are a nation of laws, what Hillary Clinton has done should not be up for argument. But is is up for argument with a large percentage of the population willing to ignore her unlawful behavior. She has attained a position of great power and because of that she can influence the sentiments of a nation.

She needs to be charged to restore faith in our system.

 

[feralkid]

She needs to be charged to restore faith in our system.

Charged with what, exactly?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I hate the conservative brain defect, not the conservative brain defective. I was going to tell you that I am interested in everything too. I am extreme in my language with you because I feel safe. I hold you with very high regard and deep respect. I trust you to stay true to your values.

You may have noticed that there are a lot of conservatives who are crazy and that their ideas are dangerous. It's a difficult issue because they are impervious to realizing it, in my opinion. What options are there to deal with them, would you say?

Keep telling them ad nauseam that they have a brain defect? This isn't working?

 

[boomerang]

Charged with what, exactly?

Seriously? I'm sorry that your news sources shield that information from you. I run across reports from legal experts on a regular basis getting into detail regarding the laws she's broken. This information is not hard to find.