The EU debate - Part III

That article's nonsense. Sorry.
They're not going to prosecute her, as they've said repeatedly.
A pre-election article from a pro-Trump paper is not evidence to the contrary, I'm afraid.

 

We can all open links GC. Were you trying to fool some people that you could actually write intelligently?

 

What does any of that have to do with that post?
A suggested bribe to a man that then did something obviously detrimental to her campaign makes no sense, does it?
She paid him off and then he screwed her over really blatantly? At least try to pick things that connect, FFS.

 

It's like reading Comical Ali.

 

Yes, it is. The FBI clear her twice and you stand there getting run over by the tanks.
Breitbart told you that it's true though, so you can't work your way out of the alt-right echo-chamber.
Man, this ****'s embarrassing.

I guess Trump wasn't lying about his connections to Russia either?
That's despite the Russians grassing him up and laughing about their part in the Wikileaks revelations.
Top bloke, though. I'm sure his Presidency will be just great!

 

You're claiming he screwed her over. That's bollocks.

Clinton screwed Clinton over by being Clinton. Thank **** she lost.

See, straight forward connection Mr Saeed al-Sahhaf.

please log in to view this image

 

You can keep trying to deflect, deny and trying to rewrite the reality all you like. Daft claims about what you feel are the sources of what I say just show the weakness of your argument Mr Saeed al-Sahhaf. Thankfully, Crooked Hillary destroyed herself.

 

Publicly revealing the details of the investigation that close to the election was clearly screwing her over.
Comey being threatened with Hatch Act violations isn't bollocks, is it?

Trey Gowdy has been going after Clinton for years. He's a Republican senator, FFS.
He failed on Benghazi and he's failed on the emails. It sells well with his voters, though.
He's happy to kill the intellectually impaired too, so you should watch out:
https://www.thenation.com/article/trey-gowdy-sent-an-intellectually-disabled-man-to-death-row/

 

You're the one doing all of those things. Is she being prosecuted? No.
You're doing exactly the same thing as Breitbart. Anything brought up about Trump? EMAILS!!!!!!
It's pathetic.

 

Here's the July findings of the FBI that you say clear her and I say they didn't have enough evidence to support a prosecution.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

 

It all comes down to this that you've said...

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties(VCLT). It says: "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements".

The argument is though that we havent yet met our constitutional requirements. As they require us to have a parliamentary vote after an advisary referendum.

 

Clinton being Clinton left the FBI no choice in revealing the documents. It's quite likely Trump winning is the best outcome for all of us.

Had she won, it's likely Obamia would act to stop further investigation, as he hardly comes out of this squeaky clean. As it is, rather than look vindictive, Trump is liable to let this slide, probably keeping the key bits because, without her being able to use the system to cover her actions, he has her chained and muzzled.

 

So no reasonable prosecutor would attempt to bring the case against her, but you've already found her guilty!
I've no idea how you think that backs your point of view, to be honest and this is from a press release that Comey got hammered for.
Clearly more evidence of him being bought off. Somehow...

 

See the FBI report on her 'innocence'. And this is just one minor reason it's a blessing she lost.

 

We are not talking about brexit, but about how great trump is and how much a witch, Clinton is.

Anyway it will be passed in parliament, so dont worry, we will be leaving the EU

 

Comey revealing the investigation when it took two more days to clear her was ridiculous.
He's been panned for it from all over the place. It was clearly a political move, as was his initial statement.
Get out of your echo-chamber for a minute and you'd already know this.

 

It certainly doesn't say they cleared her, which is your claim. The evidence and the report shows that she's guilty of breaking the laws, it just wasn't deemed appropriate in balance to prosecute.

 

The one that says she's not even going to be charged?

 

Read that comment again and realise quite how stupid it is.
There's nothing to charge her with, but she's obviously completely guilty?

 

The politics is obvious. It's what's behind the non-prosecution. The discussion with Clinton and the DoJ director on the runway points to the reasons.