Zaac, you are unbelievable. You're letting your dislike of Rev cloud your judgment.
I disagree. I dislike mitchell's partisan unGodliness that he thinks doubles for God's truth. I like him just fine. And when he starts acting like the shepherd of God's sheep instead of the shepherd of the GOP sheep, then I'll refer to him as such.
Here are the facts. Clinton has been in government for more than 20 years. Being Secretary of State is NOT the first time she's had to deal with classified information. She had to sign non-disclosure agreements stating she understands the requirements for handling classified information and the repercussions of improperly handling them.
Ok.
Here's another fact: It isn't Comey's job to prosecute her. His job was to make the recommendation to Lynch. So there's nothing "partisan" about what was posted;
I disagree. It was partisan that there was a press conference. Unprecedented,
It was partisan that he starts to speak his opinion as opposed to issues of the law.
it was all opinion about what Clinton did, based on the rules and requirements for handling classified information.
He's the FBI director investigating a possible crime. No one asked for his opinions.
He provided the opinion that Clinton was negligently careless;
Again, it's not his place to offer his opinions on investigations into violations of the law. It's unprofessional and NOT what he was tasked with doing.
then he provided the opinion that she shouldn't be prosecuted, although others should.
Nope. He provided his findings in accordance of the law. Stating his opinion about carelessness has nothing to do with whether or not an indictable offense has taken place.
Speaking to what her intent was based upon his findings is acceptable because he again is dealing with the law. Providing an opinion about her being negligently careless was not warranted based upon what he said he found and was indeed partisan. If it had not been a partisan jab, he would have recommended that she be prosecuted. As an issue of the LAW, which is what his job is, he found nothing negligently careless about what she did. If he had, the DOJ would now be prosecuting.
So either it was a partisan jab or he needs to be removed from office for not doing his job if he believes she was intentionally negligently careless.
So get off your Rev-bashing horse, and treat the situation without bias.
Man hush. You've just got a stick in your craw over me and always seem to find a way to rush in and try to "put me in my place". It's kinda your calling card. And every time I'm sitting here reading what you wrote and thinking you don't have a clue about of what you speak and it's just your way of again getting at me. If you really were trying to be just instead of trying to backhand me on the sly, you would have spoken up the myriad of times that mitchell has referred to me as a "that thing". But by your hypocrisy, you expose yourself like so many others as to what your TRUE intent is.
You, me, and Rev would be spending time in jail for what happened. Period.
.
No we wouldn't because there would never have been such a witch-hunt after us coming out of Benghazi.
And she shouldn't. It's about time you and the rest of the GOP stopped acting so ridiculously stupid. As I said, y'all want to do everything you can to prosecute this woman over some stupid emails and a server. But the many of you are constantly looking for excuses to rationalize the behavior of murdering police officers.
Just another reason why Christians should be ashamed of associating themselves with the GOP madness. Many of you can get all up in arms over some stupid emails or some dogs, but God forbid you provide free summer lunches for poor kids without busting a gasket.
