you are no attorney and your dnc b.s. is not fooling anyone. everybody knows she is at risk of felony prosecution. Not only does that article admit she could be liable for felonies... it was written long before the destruction and bleach bit of evidence happened. It was written long before her top aide and lover was sending all the messages off site to her "husbands" computer happened. (who has ties to the muslim brotherhood.) There are so many felonies and so many national security issues in play... she would have had to funnel $750,000 dollars the wife of the lead fbi investigator and her husband with have had to cut an illegal deal on the tarmac to not be tried and found guilty. 2. is anyone saying this is not gossip? go ahead mark it. I call it gossip.
'Everybody knows' except Comey and legal experts who aren't Republicans Even assuming your 'destruction' part, FOIA is not a criminal law. There are no other 'felonies' in play, DOJ is not even investigating Hillary, but thanks for inserting all your talking points into one incoherent nonsense, your guy fired the guy investigating his collusion and yet you are talking about tarmacs.
that is the old the experts say or don't say canard. What usually happens is a judge reads the law to the jury and then the jury decides if the elements of the law were broken. Jury instructions break down the law so that a layman can understand them and find if the defendant is guilty or not guilty. You don't need to be a legal expert to figure out if a law was broken. In fact if you did need an expert ... that law could be unconstitutionally vague. if you look at what she did she could be held libel for numerous felonies. Those laws are discussed in a credible fashion by numerous sources from t.v. news shows to serious articles to senators and congressman discussing them. . I have given some of them to you before. arguing hillary could not be tried for felonies is a dnc lie.
Heh, she sets a complete offline server system in her house to handle and traffic in government business and you think that a prosecutor could not establish the "knowingly" part. Good luck wit dat. Perhaps you are thinking Loretta's Justice Department is still there to lap up that shiite. News Flash! She ain't. Let the grand jury decide.
its not the gossip story that makes her guilty as sin... it simply triggers our hope the swamp will be cleaned and Hillary will have her day in court. I have a slight hope that she gets her day in court. I would like to see if she can convince her peers... not democrats but everyone that she is innocent. As as far as I am concerned justice will be served even if she were to be found innocent after a fair trial. I am a process guy.
Prior to an election it's tricky to accuse a foreign power of interfering. however, Obama did with respect to the emails. Obama was also aware that the Trump campaign was talking to the Russians but it's difficult to call out your opponent on a pretty serious charge without all the evidence laid it. It takes time to lay out that evidence. But they were doing the investigations. Of course, Trump is accusing Obama of political espionage. But he's not credible when he talks about being the victim. Trump even insinuated on times that the Russians were influencing the election. And Hillary made many public claims about it. The fact that Trump asked the hackers to release more emails is also an interesting point on this topic.