Panther
Gold Member
Offline
My Heart beats True for the Red White & Blue...
Posts: 11876
Gender: 
|
Big Donger wrote on Feb 11 th, 2017 at 1:12pm: Panther wrote on Feb 11 th, 2017 at 10:23am: Big Donger wrote on Feb 10 th, 2017 at 10:48pm: Panther wrote on Feb 10 th, 2017 at 3:46pm:
That wreaks of 3rd party, no?
Who "retweeted" Trump's original tweet?
That would/could be termed a "smoking gun" if the AG, part of the Trump Administration, were so inclined to take down Trump on petty charges like, tweeting while intoxicated, or tweeting falsely under oath......etc...& then get a super majority of US Senators to agree completely.
Please proffer your findings of exactly what parts of his freedom of speech is forbidden by statute....I know of no statute that defines anything of the sort. Tnx...  I say, Panther, was Hillary's private email server covered by the Firat Amendment too? I'm curious. IMHO....No, that's completely different. Mishandling Classified Information....information that didn't belong to her, information that belonged to the Government....thereby, the People. They're talking possible espionage.....the laws she has been said to have broken, had nothing whatsoever to do with the basic Freedom of Speech contained in the First Amendment to the US Constitution, & if they prosecuted her by existing espionage law, she wouldn't stand much of a chance....
Much???
On any given day any jury can find for a different outcome based on the exact same evidence.
In America, on that one day, when the jury foreman reads their verdict, on that day the jury is the law.....regardless of what is written in any law book, they can decide for whatever outcome they want. If it's contrary to the written law, or to legal precedence,
it is called "Jury Nullification ".....where the jury knows the law, but by their action they choose to nullify or ignore that law.
Another case, where in America, the ultimate power rests in the hands of the People, & not in the hands of government.
The jury is also protected, by law, from having to divulge their reasoning leading up to their decision. They can choose to individually discuss their individual feelings with the media.....or not discuss the matter at all.....their choice.
Sometimes that works to the majorities benefit, sometimes not.  Are you saying Hillary gave this information to the wrong person, Panther? Please explain. It seems to me that if Mr Trump's free to say what he thinks about businesses, judges and his daughter's line of lingerie, Hillary should be free to send private emails to people.It's in your constitution, yes?
As an employee of the People, as Sec. of State, she had the responsibility of protecting Classified information, work product that does not belong to her personally, nor ever belonged to her personally, from people who may have motives not in the best interests of America, & its People (her employers), from accessing that Classified Information.
This never was about her personal emails, say to her daughter, or her husband, to her Uncle Fred.
This was always about how she stored, & where she stored Classified Information vital to National Security, subjecting these materials, & her work product, to the peering eyes of anyone able to break into her unsecured server(s).....to the detriment of the American People & her Government.
Clinton chose not only to disregard that responsibility, but decided to co-mingle her personal correspondence with her Work Product & Classified Correspondence, in a flagrant display of indifference, even though she was, by her own Congressional testimony & eventual admission, she was completely aware that it was inappropriate to do so. Her reasoning that years before her that it was done by another Secretary of State, but later admitted that she was aware that subsequently, new laws had since been put in place to guard against using "Personal Servers" which may lead to housing Classified Information insecurely & illegally.
Now, any of her personal correspondence, not related to her duties as Secretary of State would be perfectly fine on the server she decided to use, but by law she was aware she needed to keep America's Classified Information, & all her work product, separate, & secure on government servers.
It's not, & never was a Freedom of Speech issue.....& for the life of me, I can not honestly understand how anyone in their right minds can confuse her activity, with how President Trump spoke freely about what he did, & as he did on Twitter.
It's like comparing his using a strong mouth wash, with her using caustic drain cleaner, both with different end results.
|
Forum
Pages: 
surely not even the fanboys can defend this... (Read 4823 times)
