To: Mr. K
That point about her intending to break classification rules is important, because in order to have broken the law, it isn’t enough for Clinton to have had classified information in a place where it was possible for it to be hacked. She would have had to intentionally given classified information to someone without authorization to have it This assertion is categorically false.
5 posted on
05/10/2016 9:54:51 AM PDT by
MortMan
(Let's call the push for amnesty what it is: Pedrophilia.)
To: MortMan
“This assertion is categorically false.”
Agreed...but also not applicable. She sent secret info to Blumenthal, who didn’t have any clearance.
22 posted on
05/10/2016 10:03:55 AM PDT by
lacrew
To: MortMan
doesn’t matter if the point is true or false, only that it provides cover. the fix is in - she ain’t going nowhere
42 posted on
05/10/2016 10:19:36 AM PDT by
camle
(keep an open mind and someone will fill it full of something for you)
To: MortMan
This assertion is categorically false.
++++
And your comment is absolutely CORRECT. Lack of intention is not a defense.
44 posted on
05/10/2016 10:21:18 AM PDT by
InterceptPoint
(Still a Cruz Fan but voting for Trump)
To: MortMan
Yes, but that won’t stop the Federales from using ‘intent’ as the benchmark.
You or I would be headed for prison, but not Hillary or the ruling elite.
49 posted on
05/10/2016 10:25:01 AM PDT by
Little Ray
(NOTHING THAT SOMEONE ELSE HAS TO PAY FOR IS A RIGHT.)
To: MortMan
I think the Washington Post pulled this memo out of James Carvilles butt.
64 posted on
05/10/2016 12:24:17 PM PDT by
cpdiii
(DECKHAND, ROUGHNECK, MUDMAN GEOLOGIST PILOT PHARMACIST LIBERTARIAN, CONSTITUTION IS WORTH DYING FOR)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson