.
Obama’s Comments on Clinton Emails Collide With F.B.I. Inquiry (Agents angry with Obama)
Check out article and # 17 , # 18 .
Thanks, Wildhighlander57.
Posted on 10/16/2015 3:55:08 AM PDT by kristinn
Sometimes, it’s not what you see going on that is important. It is what is NOT going on that is important.
The reference to Petraeus is interesting. Obama was correct — national security was not harmed directly by Petraeus’s actions. But that did no prevent Petraeus from being charged and ruined.
I think Obama instinctively engaged in shallow political spin about Hillary, saying something that sounded moderately favorable to her but is actually irrelevant. Lower level FBI might read this as a signal to their corrupt bosses, but I think it means zip, especially after the walk-back by Josh Ernest, who said something like “Obama meant, based on what is known publicly”. That comment should have raised a lot of questions.
No doubt in my mind, Joe is IN.
It may be that the Muslim is playing games with her, knows she is going down, and is pretending to give her support.
BTTT
Same article?
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3349380/posts
Yep. I am pretty sure that this one was posted first but it’s not a big deal. Sometimes people forget to check and things get double posted. It happens.
That section you quoted applies not only to a certain prospective office holder, but to the one in the office now.
IMPEACH!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3349297/posts?page=17#17
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3349297/posts?page=18#18
Liz, thanks for the posts!
Lucyt, for your pinglist!
“That section you quoted applies not only to a certain prospective office holder, but to the one in the office now.
IMPEACH!”
Use the law as intended, and do a thorough house cleaning now.
And what if a sitting president had done it?
IMHO high crimes and misdemeanors....
.
Obama’s Comments on Clinton Emails Collide With F.B.I. Inquiry (Agents angry with Obama)
Check out article and # 17 , # 18 .
Thanks, Wildhighlander57.
That's not the way I read it. The law says that putting DEFENSE information at risk is a crime, with no reference to classified information. This was in a thread here yesterday.
Here is the reference to yesterdays post that says “defense information”-
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3349508/posts
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
According to the FBI agent, the investigation being conducted by the bureau centers on whether or not she violated the laws within the Espionage Act, specifically, “18 U.S. Code § 793 – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information.” The law applies to “any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense’ – even if it’s not considered classified.”
But not mad enough to out him as ineligible.
Think and fast
Leaks come at last!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.