Was Huma Abedin more privileged than this sailor?
- Thread starter NZ Poke
- Start date
Absolutely - more like have gotten away with many, including in 2016.
Meanwhile......this came out yesterday.
Huma's privileged life could be set to become very interesting. Haiti has always been rumored to be centered around some of the deepest and darkest Clinton / Clinton Foundation secrets. (Haitians have extreme hate toward the Clintons)
Question for the JD's.
What the hell does intent have to do with mishandling classified information? You either broke the law or you didnt. Seems to me if you have to have intent then there would be a lot of people who wouldn't have much motivation to take care of classified information.
If I get a speeding ticket the cop doesn't ask if I intended to go 20 miles over. He writes the damn ticket.
What the hell does intent have to do with mishandling classified information? You either broke the law or you didnt. Seems to me if you have to have intent then there would be a lot of people who wouldn't have much motivation to take care of classified information.
If I get a speeding ticket the cop doesn't ask if I intended to go 20 miles over. He writes the damn ticket.
Democrats knew dragging out the confirmation process as long as possible would delay all appointments under the people they were obstructing.
This was planned out by the Dems to be exactly what it currently is.
Well, when intent is one of the elements of the crime, one has to have the requisite intent in order to be shown to have broken the law.
The requisite mens rea is very important when it comes to criminal charges. In regards to the handling of classified information, the "negligent" mishandling of classified information is not a civilian criminal offense. One can suffer other consequences from negligently mishandling classified information (i.e. loss of clearance, loss of employment, etc.) but in terms of being charged with a criminal offense, it doesn't satisfy the elements of the potential charge.
Speeding is a strict liability crime. Your mental state (i.e. mens rea) at the time doesn't matter. All that is needed for this crime is your actus reus (the criminal action itself, i.e. speeding).
The charges related to mishandling of classified information are not based on strict liability.
Jeff Sessions was confirmed nearly 3 months ago and you are still blaming the Dems.
Do you have a problem with political obstructionism?
And are you claiming that Trump hasn't appointed a special prosecutor (as he claimed he would) to investigate Clinton and her aides simply because some positions at the DOJ haven't been filled?
Yes.
Sessions has explained clearly in interviews how his delay backed up the entire process of the vetting needed to appoint US attorneys.
Don't worry the positions will soon be filled with serious prosecutors not Obama sycophants.
He was confirmed 18 days after Trump was inaugurated. Nearly 3 months ago.
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/05/woman_who_laughed_during_jeff.html
Be careful what you ask for...or laugh about.
Yes she is being prosecuting for laughing.
What a bullcrap headline.
Here is the headline.
Woman who laughed during Jeff Sessions confirmation convicted, faces year in prison.
She laughed during the confirmation, she was convicted, she faces a year in prison. The headline doesn't say she was prosecuted for laughing. Doesn't say she was convicted for laughing. It is factually accurate.
C'mon man, you know that headline was to make it look was she was frivolously prosecuted.
Here are some other factually accurate headlines you didn't see.
* Senate follows constitution and with what Democrats previously said they would do with Obama Supreme Court pick
* Attorney General Holder race-baiting comments about Ferguson explained
* Guns don't kill people, bad people do
* Amazing 10% who fund 70% of nation's entitlements
* Spotlight: Chicago and Baltimore's crime rate problem under Democrat leadership
* Cities block the federal government from protecting citizens
* CNN website has 60% of headlines geared toward anti-Trump
You said it was bull crap.
It is factually absolutely accurate. As is the article itself.
FYI Jeff sessions is not the only employee at justice. It's like your wife didn't have sex with Carmelo, she banged the whole team. That takes coordination, logistics, supplies and that all has a review process so no one gets poked in the eye.
I will be extremely sad if obama Hillary, Jarrett and rice arent sitting in a cell like the end of Seinfeld.
Something can be bullcrap and still be "factually" accurate. That's how they make bullcrap headlines they take something obscure, that is "factually" accurate, to imply something negative, then give the details buried in the article which most snowflakes will never bother to read and they know it. The NYT and Wash. Post do this crap daily.
They represent your point of view so you'll never admit their biases.
Who knows? I've been fvcked by the knicks as many times as Ive worked in the justice department. I can assume the same for you?
The report itself was also completely factually accurate.
So you INFERRED what was their intent behind a completely factual headline and report and declared the factual statement bullcrap based upon your inference of intent. The completely, totally, factually accurate headline AND report didn't represent your worldview and that's why you made the inference you did. You just don't like it because it doesn't paint your Trump overlord as a messiah in favor of simply....reporting....the...facts....with no analysis or lean.
I have said REPEATEDLY.....EXPLICITLY.....that they are biased in their reporting. So you are full of crap and being hysterical in claiming I'll never admit their biases. Furthermore, that headline and article wasn't written by NYT or WaPo. It was written by an AL.com staff member. AL.com ain't exactly a bastion of liberal reporting.
There's definitely a dainty little snowflake involved in this discussion.
IT'S YOU.
