No Rid I take it seriously. Despite saying Weird Al for Pres I will bite my tounge and make a hard choice, but it *squee!*ing sucks we're forced to choose between a criminal who should be in jail and entertainer who's ego could fill a football stadium. Worse still for senate here in Nevada we have Reed Jr or Reed Light. Are there really two parties anymore?
Something, something, beating a dead horse. http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/06/politics/comey-tells-congress-fbi-has-not-changed-conclusions/
The emails are out there and available, yes? Please point out the specific emails that equate to criminal behavior. I have not looked through them thoroughly and would honestly like to know the exact emails that you say are criminal and why they are as well. https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/
Mishandling classified information violates federal law. That is a fact. http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section793&num=0&edition=prelim Hillary Clinton, through gross negligence, routinely mishandled sensitive and classified information. That is also a fact. http://nypost.com/2016/11/06/clinton-directed-her-maid-to-print-out-classified-materials/ So, the facts stand as such: 1. Mishandling classified material is against the law. 2. Hillary Clinton mishandled classified material. Thus, Hillary Clinton broke the law.
And that's why the FBI re-opened the potential for wrongdoing for a week (which was probably longer than necessary, considering how the vast majority of the e-mails have already been seen), during a time where it would undeniably hurt Hillary's chances of winning the election. Makes perfect sense.
Do they honestly expect people to believe that they actually read through all 650,000 emails in eight days? Last time, it took the FBI a year and a half to get through the 30,000 that Hillary allowed them to see. So, either the FBI suddenly became exponentially more efficient, or somebody is hiding something.
Or they have other people as good as Snowden and know what they are doing. http://fortune.com/2016/11/07/edward-snowden-twitter-emails/
Good theory, but it fails to address the actual issue. If it took the FBI a year and half to complete an investigation involving only 30,000 emails, how did they manage to run a proper investigation of over twenty times that many emails in just over a week?
You'll never change your mind. No matter what happens, any evidence or lack thereof will not sway you. You have already condemned her as guilty and demanded she prove her innocence, which is the exact opposite of how the court system works in the USA...
She gave her maid access to classified material. If you don't consider that "mishandling," then what the hell would it take?
Candidates in the United States are also not supposed to clinch their nominations in the primaries via fraudulent methods, but this is exactly what the DNC did in regard to Clinton. Regardless of what the case is in terms of the email server scandal, I have always thought that this was a much stronger argument pertaining to what the OP originally asked.
All it takes is knowledge and understanding of the situation to know the truth. Nearly all of the relevant E-mails were ones they've already reviewed and cast judgement on. For the small remainder that were new, they can easily be separated from the rest. Even that thirty-thousand was done under different circumstances, so they're not an accurate measuring tool for comparison. It doesn't take much effort to find this stuff out, but I'm not surprised since the majority of the American public is either ignorant, apathetic, lazy, irrationally loyal, or some combination thereof.
Yes, because your "witty" remark must mean you're correct. In the case you thought that I was referring to you when I said "majority" and felt offended, you only have yourself to blame for that. Or, if you actually have a higher opinion of Americans in general, for whatever reason... Good for you?
