A few questions for Libs here

[chadk66]

she'll be convicted when hell freezes over. given that I will cheer harder for global warming

[davew]

when questions are too difficult to answer, then just post pics....

[Stevecsd]

Mostie,

Please read
18 U.S. Code § 793

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

and tell me how Hillary Clinton DID NOT VIOLATE this!

Intent is NOT part of this code, only the fact that the actions were committed.

Also read

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...t-hillary-hook

She should be in jail.

[Tom]

Comey should read that as well.
And he too, should be in jail.

What do you do to an old, useless woman like Hillary if convicted?
Hangman?
Firing squad?

Naw....push her arse off a curb!

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Originally Posted by chadk66

she'll be convicted when hell freezes over. given that I will cheer harder for global warming

I'm all in for Global Warming. If so, I have mad property that will be worth about $25 Million come 2045 supposedly. Of course that is just estimates when we are the beach.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by chadk66
she'll be convicted when hell freezes over.

That was today, 6:03 am.

[davew]

Originally Posted by Lemon Drop Husker

I'm all in for Global Warming. If so, I have mad property that will be worth about $25 Million come 2045 supposedly. Of course that is just estimates when we are the beach.

The sea level is rising, but they have been measuring it wrong. That is why the level at the ocean shore is not going up. You see, the bottom of the ocean must be sinking. (this keeps the climate disruption fact alive...)

https://www.livescience.com/61328-oc...s-sinking.html

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by Stevecsd

Mostie,

Please read
18 U.S. Code § 793

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

and tell me how Hillary Clinton DID NOT VIOLATE this!

Intent is NOT part of this code, only the fact that the actions were committed.

Also read

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...t-hillary-hook

She should be in jail.

Exactly right. Comey has admitted giving classified info to his friends. He should be toast.


Huma too

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Originally Posted by davew

The sea level is rising, but they have been measuring it wrong. That is why the level at the ocean shore is not going up. You see, the bottom of the ocean must be sinking. (this keeps the climate disruption fact alive...)

https://www.livescience.com/61328-oc...s-sinking.html

Dave, you need to fight the real fight in China.

They emit more than 2xs the CO2 we do. Get your ass over there and start complaining and protesting. FO' REAL.

Being here is worthless. Even if we change across our country to electric or wind or other sources for power, we'll be at the hands of China, Europe and the other developing countries. As our coasts collapse and your efforts become more than useless.

[davew]

Originally Posted by Lemon Drop Husker

Dave, you need to fight the real fight in China.

They emit more than 2xs the CO2 we do. Get your ass over there and start complaining and protesting. FO' REAL.

Being here is worthless. Even if we change across our country to electric or wind or other sources for power, we'll be at the hands of China, Europe and the other developing countries. As our coasts collapse and your efforts become more than useless.

In China they execute the climate alarmists to do their part to lower carbon dioxide emissions - Gore and DiCaprio should go there.

[Burls]

Michael Wolff is a total loser who made up stories in order to sell this really boring and untruthful book. He used Sloppy Steve Bannon, who cried when he got fired and begged for his job. Now Sloppy Steve has been dumped like a dog by almost everyone. Too bad!

[chadk66]

Originally Posted by Lemon Drop Husker

I'm all in for Global Warming. If so, I have mad property that will be worth about $25 Million come 2045 supposedly. Of course that is just estimates when we are the beach.

lucky bastard. maybe I need to start looking for possible ocean front property myself

[chadk66]

Originally Posted by Tom

That was today, 6:03 am.

it was last week for me. -30 at 6 a.m.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Burls

Michael Wolff is a total loser who made up stories in order to sell this really boring and untruthful book. He used Sloppy Steve Bannon, who cried when he got fired and begged for his job. Now Sloppy Steve has been dumped like a dog by almost everyone. Too bad!

I really like how you worked Steve, dump, and dog into the same sentence~! You could sell that to Trump for a tweet!

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by Stevecsd

Mostie,

Please read
18 U.S. Code § 793

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

and tell me how Hillary Clinton DID NOT VIOLATE this!

Intent is NOT part of this code, only the fact that the actions were committed.

Actually intent is right in the first section: Section (a)
Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation,

Section (b) says:
Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe,
"Purpose aforesaid" clearly refers back to (a) which to refresh your memory states: Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation,

Section (c) begins with:Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, again referring back to section (a) about intent.
Sections (d) and (e0 contain the words "Willfully communicates etc."
Willfully is defined as "Deliberate, voluntary, or intentional."
In order for those things to be true, there must be intent.

Let's say that Hillary Clinton was charged under this statute What would the prosecution have to prove?

They would have to prove that she had the intent to harm the United States. Section (a)

They would have to prove that she willfully sent information to a person or persons not authorized to receive it (Section (d) and (e)with the intent to harm the United States (Section (a)

They would have to prove that she refused to turn over such information On Demand to the person authorized to receive it. But since Clinton was the Secretary of State, she is always the one authorized.

Much was made of the fact that Huma Abedin sent classified material to her husband Anthony Weiner to print out for Clinton, since he did not have clearance. But, as I pointed out here, https://news.clearancejobs.com/2012/...ty-clearances/
members of Congress are not required to have security clearances to access classified.

Looming over all of this is section (a) which clearly and unequivocally states that there must be INTENT.