DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on July 07, 2016, 12:46:30 PM
-
As FBI director Comey is being interviewed by a congressional hearing, what he's making clear is that his interpretation of the Federal statute, as it relates to "intent", is the intention involved doesn't require just maintaining highly classified material on an unsecured private server, doesn't require sending and receiving highly classified material on an unsecured server, but also requires the knowledge that what she was doing was wrong and unlawful. That's what he's using to compare her actions to others who have been prosecuted for far less. In those lesser cases, the people involved acknowledged what they were doing was unlawful and/or was caught in a lie during an official FBI/Justice Dept interview. In Clinton's case, the reason intent was not recognized, is that she was simply too dumb to grasp that what she was doing wrong and contrary to the very protections she herself signed that she'd follow
I see the approach Comey is bringing to the table....pathological liar, reckless, careless, and dumb to boot. Brilliant nominee Democrats
-
Do you think it is possible that she really is completely clueless?
She is either clueless or crooked , which makes a better president?
-
Naaaa.......an angry paranoid is still the best label I have for her. Which in turn leads to such reckless and negligent behavior
-
Based on today's interview with Wolf Blitzer, it appears she's doubling down on her incompotence defense
-
Clinton exonerated by her own incompetence (https://youtu.be/YSXo9yCutTQ)