Lol. No. I’m saying she should be in prison right now. Some people in high places let her go. That’s the exact opposite of weaponizing.
-
Lmao. You’re hilarious.
You're saying you've got proof Hillary's intent was to get hacked so Russia could get classified information that was not marked as such?
-
-
What???? You just pulled that right out of your ass.
-
No. Unless you have proof of that you don't have the basis to charge her. THAT's the point. Her ill-intent was abt violating FRA, not sharing classified info improperly (which was Petraeus' intent).
-
She willfully set up a server. She was completely careless in the handling. It’s irrelevant whether she intended to transmit classified data. She knew she would be, OR she’s the single dumbest human being ever. Which is it?
-
It's not irrelevant. That's why she wasn't charged. Petraeus, however, KNEW that he was keeping notebooks with covert operatives IDs and code word intelligence in an unlocked desk drawer. That's the difference. Careless =/= willful mishandling of code word intel.
-
It was irrelevant and that’s why she *should* have been charged. Everybody that’s being honest about this, knows this.
-
As you said, you're not a lawyer. You apparently don't track this stuff very closely, either. Bc mishandling w/o intent (Hillary) actually is treated as less serious than mishandling w/intent (Petraeus).
-
I’m not a lawyer but I’m not drooling stupid either. She’s not in prison for 2 reasons. A. She’s Hillary Clinton and B. She was running against Trump. That’s the reality. End of story.
-
I get that you believe that. And yet the FBI did far more to attack her campaign than it did to attack Trump's.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.