On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 1:07:50 AM UTC-4, Gutless Umbrella
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy Post by Robert Bannister Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy Post by Robert Bannister Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 8:22:40 AM UTC+10,
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy Post by Quadibloc
Recently, because some supporters of Hillary Clinton
are poor people with little to lose,
And the overwhelming majority are rich people with a
great deal to gain under Clinton's "pay to play" method
Funny that Clinton won votes for people with family
incomes under $30,000 and under $50,000 a year but lost
all the higher levels then isn't it? They were 48% of her
votes and 2/3 of votes for Clinton came from them and the
category $50,000-$99,999 a year.
But I'm sure you won't let fact dissuade you from your
Now that I know you're just another furriner talking out
your ass about something that's none of your business
anyway (as well as, literally, hallucinating), who cares?
The only purpose you serve in life, like most Aussies, is
to be the punch line of lowbrow jokes.
Dance, little monkey, dance.
Clinton lost because voters realized just how dishonest -
and criminal - she is, and simply didn't trust her. And
And Trump is honest???
Trump didn't participate in a cover up of one of the worst
breachres of national security in US history.
So Hillary revealed more than Manning and Assange? Funny we
don't read about any of those huge secrets.
Manning is in prison, and rightfully so. Clinton is not,
despite far more serious crimes.
I know this is a berzerk button for you, but...
I just took my annual Classified Security Refresher Course,
which is required to maintain my clearance.
I looked carefully at the language of the agreements. It said
that exposure of Top Secret information *could* cause grave
damage to the United States, and *may* result in prosecution.
There was never any real possibility that Clinton would be
presoecuted. As Comey testified, the stuff they could prove
required intent, and he clearly had no clue she was breaking the
law. The coverup is of the people who _sent_ over a hundred emails
containing information that was classfied at the time.
So, (1) do we know if any of Clinton's classified data was
actually hacked by an enemy of the US (As opposed to just being
handled and stored improperly)?
I don't recall the details, but it was a near certainty that the
server had been accessed by multiple foreign governments. That,
however, is irrelvant to the coverup. The mininum of three felonies
for each email are:
Removing classified information from a secure server
Removing the markings indicating it was classfied (Clinton's
Sending classified information through a non-secure network (the
(2) The relevant agencies are allowed to exercise discretion
over whether they prosecute or not.
But not over whether they investigate, and take efforts to secure
the compromised information, even to the extent of seizing private
property. (And the investigators have their own rules regarding
that, not the same ones as the ordinary security clearance.)
So, her not being prosecuted is well within the legal options
covering the situation. You may not like it, but that's not your
call to make.
I never said _she_ should be prosecuted. In fact, I've said
explicitly otherwise. The political damage done by the winner
putting the loser in prison far exceeds even the damage done by the
criminal acts. And, in the interests of equal protection, those who
committed over 300 felonies really shouldn't be, either, if she's
But investigating and doing what can be done to secure the
compromised information are not the sam thing as filing criminal
And completely ignoring the 300+ felonies, pretending they didn't
happen, is a coverup.
Vacation photos from Iceland:
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.