Investigators: Scant evidence Clinton had malicious intent in handling of emails

Washington Post ^ | May 5, 2016 | Matt Zapotosky

[TWhiteBear]

As the Washington Post clearly states,there is evidence that Mz Clinton had malicious intent in handling the emails.
Sort of like only one, mere fingerprint on the smoking gun.
TWB

[FredZarguna]

No there doesn’t. You are mistaken. Stop posting crap.

[lapsus calami]

 

 

LoL - more lame attempts at moving the goal posts by the Clintonistas. They're a walking, talking Monty Python sketch.

 

 

[thoughtomator]

I do believe you are correct.

[Gasshog]

Queen Cankles the First is above the law you foolish peons!!

the FBI will knell in subservience to Her Crustiness by the prayer of King Obunghole First DickTater of the USSA and Chief Affirmative Action Reciepiant Lor-Et-A Catfish.

[LittleBillyInfidel]

Scant evidence of “intent” when Robert Hansen passively left SCI/TS info in certain cafes. Of course, we now know his intent; Hillary is likely just an arrogant idiot. Hansen was an arrogant idiot traitor. How many years does dippy get?

[John Leland 1789]

At the very least it is gross incompetence, such that she should never be allowed access to classified materials ever again. That in itself would preclude her from the presidency. A president so incompetent and so self-absorbed, in the way she conducts the handling of such materials, is too great a risk to our national security.

But she really did violate the law, and what she intended to do with the materials does not change that. It is impossible that she could have been married to a sitting president, be in the U.S. Senate, and be Secretary of State without having an adequate understanding of such things.

[taxcontrol]

The law does not take intent into account. The law says if you mishandle classified information, you have committed a felony.

[lafroste]

The question is really pretty straight forward. If I kept and disseminated classified information in an unsecure, unsanctioned manner, would I be charged with a crime? Yes or no? That same answer applies to Hillary.

[Jmouse007]

Thats Not the Point. THE point is that she knowingly, willingly broke a multitude of laws concerning national security, classified and TOP SECRET MATERIALS, committed numerous crimes and felonies AND to top it all off; she wilfully, malimciously did everything within her power to try to destroy all evidence of her plethora of crimes! The FBI and all of the intelligence agencies and agents have obtained rock solid EVIDENCE, AND EYE WITNESSES WHO CAN AND HAVE TESTIFIED TO ALL OF THE ABOVE! THAT IS THE POINT, ALL THAT REMAINS TO BE ANSWERED IS THE QUESTION:

Will Mrs. Clinton be INDICTED AND PROSECUTED FOR ALL FOR THE LAWS SHE AS BROKEN AND CRIMES SHE HAS COMMITTED? ...

[eyedigress]

John, you bring up the pertinent point, it was for the Foundation and anything to keep away from the watchdog.

[Sacajaweau]

Here we go with the definition of “is”.....

[Gasshog]

I doubt you could take a Crintoon to jail even if they confess to the crime.

The crooked political allies would claim insanity.

[Mariner]

In cases of Secrecy Laws and National Security, intent is not necessary to be in criminal violation.

Negligence alone is felonious.

[FredZarguna]

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:fasceto/index?tab=comments;brevity=full;options=no-change

Have a look and judge for yourself. Looks like a paid troll of the Clinton Global Crime Family to me...

[grey_whiskers]

Fasceto
Since Jan 6, 2016

Mostly posts articles about Hillary and/or Bernie and their comments on Trump.

Very few comments.

Now defending Hillary.

SNIFF.

[eyedigress]

Now they get to play against a strong man who doesn’t drink, smoke and works 18 hours a day for 70 years.

Let’s watch.

[Fasceto]

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798

[comebacknewt]

The fix is in.

To the surprise of absolutely no one.

[WENDLE]

Intent is absolutely not required. Everyone knows she is stupid. That is NO defense. Get this indictment going NOW . Why is there any more delay?