The Mueller Report thread

[GMDino]

(09-19-2019, 05:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course I've freely asserted that Hillary didn't commit a crime. You've been asked to stop lying in the past, but you continue to do so. My stance has been that Hillary broke laws, but she did not commit a crime because wait for it......here it comes......almost here......ignorance.. Now you can be a man and apologize for constantly lying about what I say because I seriously doubt that some Board Member that has never been in this forum before or after will chime in here and state "you better".  

She was brought in because you stated ignorance is not an excuse and she's a prime example of a case I've pointed to in the past. 

I didn't "lie" (lolz) about you saying Hillary didn't commit a crime.  I said you didn't post you didn't make post after post defending her for not being charged with a crime.

Point two would be (your "stance" aside) she was not not charged due to "ignorance" but rather "intent".

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/430881-fbis-top-lawyer-believed-hillary-clinton-should-face-charges-but-was

Quote:“So, I had that belief initially after reviewing, you know, a large binder of her emails that had classified information in them,” he said. “And I discussed it internally with a number of different folks, and eventually became persuaded that charging her was not appropriate because we could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that — we, the government, could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that — she had the intent necessary to violate (the law).”


Asked when he was persuaded to change his mind, Baker said: “Pretty late in the process, because we were arguing about it, I think, up until the end.”


Baker made clear that he did not like the activity Clinton had engaged in: “My original belief after — well, after having conducted the investigation and towards the end of it, then sitting down and reading a binder of her materials — I thought that it was alarming, appalling, whatever words I said, and argued with others about why they thought she shouldn’t be charged.”


His boss, Comey, announced on July 5, 2016, that he would not recommend criminal charges. He did so without consulting the Department of Justice, a decision the department’s inspector general (IG) later concluded was misguided and likely usurped the power of the attorney general to make prosecutorial decisions. Comey has said, in retrospect, he accepts that finding but took the actions he did because he thought “they were in the country's best interest.”


Baker acknowledged that during the weeks leading up to the announcement, Comey “would throw things out like that to get people to start talking and thinking about it and test his conclusions.”


Baker said that if he had been more convinced there was evidence that Clinton intended to violate the law, “I would have argued that vociferously with him [Comey] and maybe changed his view.”

https://time.com/4394178/hillary-clinton-email-fbi-investigation/

Quote:[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.95)]Over the course of the investigation, the agents found thousands of emails that contained information that should have been treated as government secrets, Comey said Tuesday, including eight messages that had Top Secret information in them. All those messages had been sent or received through unsecure, unclassified channels on Clinton’s private e-mail network. And while agents found no direct evidence that the network was hacked, the FBI thinks it is possible some “hostile actors” may have done so. That combination of facts led Comey to declare Tuesday that Clinton and her aides had been “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”[/color]


[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.95)]Technically speaking, that conclusion could have put Clinton in legal jeopardy. The laws regarding handling of classified information don’t authorize punishing government officials for carelessness, but they are written so broadly they come close. One section of the Espionage Act, 18USC793(f), for example, says anyone authorized to handle secrets who “through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” Other laws controlling government secrets are similarly broad, especially with regard to Top Secret material.[/color]


[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.95)]In practice, however, law enforcement officials have set a high bar for prosecuting violations of those laws, looking for clear criminal intent, which Comey said was absent in the Clinton case. Because the government is awash in secrets, they are regularly mishandled unintentionally. In 2013, according to the National Archives, which tracks classification, executive branch agencies created more than 77 million documents with secrets in them, including 46,800 with newly created secrets. The FBI receives dozens of referrals of leaked classified information every year, according to Justice Department declarations to Congress.[/color]

If you want to use Clinton as another defense for DJT at least try and argue he didn't INTEND to give away secrets.  I mean that's laughable as anyone who listens to Trump knows he loves bragging up what he "knows".  His best defense is ignorance.  That's what Mueller said about Junior and the rest of the gang that couldn't lie straight.

"be a man and apologize"