So...now that we officially know that what Clinton did was 10x Patreous....

[sirs]

....remind me again, how much time was General Patreous sentenced to?

[Christians4LessGvt]

If Hillary was truly unaware of the legality of the whole server situation, would you really want someone that stupid running the country?

[sirs]

How's this for an updated concept.....She can no longer pass a background check for "High Security Clearance ", yet she can still become our next president

[Xavier_Onassis]

Would any sane person give security clearance to the Donald?

I know I wouldn't.

[sirs]

Given your track record of being wrong, and that "the Donald" hasn't had any issues with security of this nation idiocy, like "the Hill", sounds like the vast majority of the rest of the population wouldn't have any problem what so ever in granting him security clearance

[Xavier_Onassis]

The majority of the [population does not decide on security clearance.

But he won't be elected.

[sirs]

Your opinion is duly noted, and given its track record, I'm pleased with your proclamation

[Plane]

Would any sane person give security clearance to the Donald?

I know I wouldn't.

Why not , specifically?

[Plane]

http://choiceorlife.com/smartest-dumbest-u-s-presidents-ranked-by-iq-score/18/?utm_campaign=col-desk-us-pri1&utm_medium=&utm_source=revcontent&utm_content=214c7f

Source: People

IQ: 140


Nope.

According to the FBI a prosecution would not be successful because she didn't intend to mishandle and expose secrets.

  She did boneheaded things with secrets because she didn't understand that secrets are secret. Or perhaps that she didn't understand that secrets are not secret because they are "Classified" rather they are classified because they are secret.

So she was careless with secrets , some of these may have fallen into enemy hands and some human beings may have been killed as a result .

Because she did not understand .


Lets lower this IQ estimate a bit .

[sirs]

The FBI's conclusion is wrong on 2 fronts
1) its really not their position to make new statute that they can then claim she didn't break, that being intent.  Intent is not within the statute and laws she broke
2) That said, she absolutely did intend to try and hide what she was doing from the eyes of congressional oversight...by all the e-mails that she tried to delete before turning them over, and in trying to wipe the server before turning it over, and in ordering her subordinates to literally burn copies and originals of her schedule, as SoS...a public record, not her own

Just demonstrates how the fix was in, and validates Trump's & Sanders' references of a rigged system

But yes, the media can now crow about "no indictment....time to move on", and completely ignore the scathing conclusions made by the FBI, of just how reckless, paranoid, and piss poor judgement she possesses.

[Plane]

  That is one way to look at it.

   Another way to look at it is that the FBI director proclaimed her guilt and walked off the stage after setting this fire on her petticoats.

     And didn't provide any trial in which she could deny or refute his proclamation of guilt.

      I don't expect her to demand a trial, so she is going to accept his definition of the event.

[sirs]

Well....yes & no.  The media is simply repeating the "no indictment" conclusion, and leaving it at that.  For those Democrat/Clinton defendents, going on the various news shows, I've noted a particular talking point they've been provided.  When grilled about the laundry list of everything that Clinton was guilty of, the response is that Comey was actually "out of order" in making such claims....that if they were "actually true", he would have recomended indictment.  But since there was none, then his claims were pretty much hyperbole

In other words, they're trying to throw Comey under the PR bus, because his conclusions of her piss poor judgement and recklessness were unfounded, since there was no indictment

[Plane]

Well....yes & no.  The media is simply repeating the "no indictment" conclusion, and leaving it at that.  For those Democrat/Clinton defendents, going on the various news shows, I've noted a particular talking point they've been provided.  When grilled about the laundry list of everything that Clinton was guilty of, the response is that Comey was actually "out of order" in making such claims....that if they were "actually true", he would have recomended indictment.  But since there was none, then his claims were pretty much hyperbole

In other words, they're trying to throw Comey under the PR bus, because his conclusions of her piss poor judgement and recklessness were unfounded, since there was no indictment

Hmmm.. he should have known this would happen, I wonder what he thought would happen if he called for prosecution or further investigation?

    Our justice department seems to have damaged neutrality on the question.

[sirs]

Well....yes & no.  The media is simply repeating the "no indictment" conclusion, and leaving it at that.  For those Democrat/Clinton defendents, going on the various news shows, I've noted a particular talking point they've been provided.  When grilled about the laundry list of everything that Clinton was guilty of, the response is that Comey was actually "out of order" in making such claims....that if they were "actually true", he would have recommended indictment.  But since there was none, then his claims were pretty much hyperbole

In other words, they're trying to throw Comey under the PR bus, because his conclusions of her piss poor judgement and recklessness were unfounded, since there was no indictment

Hmmm.. he should have known this would happen, I wonder what he thought would happen if he called for prosecution or further investigation?

    Our justice department seems to have damaged neutrality on the question.

Now that's an understatement

[Plane]

   Yes , so he may have thought it a waste to hand responsibility to prosecutors who are Clinton Cronies.

     But watch the statement he makes , he really hands her a conviction without punishment and no opportunity to protest and appeal.

       It is too long for a Trump commercial, perhaps three.