Sidney Powell pleads guilty

a reply to: Annee

Assigned? How so?

Was she s Public Defender?

Genuine question.

a reply to: Annee

A respected lawyer that claims she saw evidence of foreign involvement that wasn't given a hearing.

Then saw that the ability to get this evidence into the public realm was going to be more than could be accomplished by Rudy the Drunk heading up the team.

She detached in time to save herself.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

I think she meant Hilary and the rapist case. The one where Hilary tried to show the sexual promiscutity of a little pre-teen girl as a defense.

And bragged about it later.

But lets all laugh at the kracken.

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: andy06shake

Hey! But it's OK to call Hillary a whack job.

Anyone bothered to read her bio history?

and read her emails that have all that classified stuff too

originally posted by: WingDingLuey

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: andy06shake

Hey! But it's OK to call Hillary a whack job.

Anyone bothered to read her bio history?

and read her emails that have all that classified stuff too

She was exonerated.

You might wanna stick to the current Classified issue currently in court.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Annee

Assigned? How so?

Was she s Public Defender?

Genuine question.

FACTS

Q: Did Hillary Clinton volunteer in 1975 to defend a rapist, who was found not guilty, and laugh about it in an interview in 1980?

A: Clinton defended an accused rapist, but she did not volunteer. He pleaded guilty to a lesser offense. She laughed when recalling unusual aspects of the case.

www.factcheck.org...

Do not want to drift thread: Sidney Powell pleads guilty

Have to go do something.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: WingDingLuey

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: andy06shake

Hey! But it's OK to call Hillary a whack job.

Anyone bothered to read her bio history?

and read her emails that have all that classified stuff too

She was exonerated.

You might wanna stick to the current Classified issue currently in court.

but the classified material is still classified and redacted

a reply to: MoreCoyoteAngels

Eh?

a reply to: Annee

Exonerated? No, she was not. They just didnt bring charges because they thought she was gonna be president

But on a day of political high drama in Washington, Mr. Comey rebuked Mrs. Clinton as being “extremely careless” in using a private email address and server. He raised questions about her judgment, contradicted statements she has made about her email practices, said it was possible that hostile foreign governments had gained access to her account, and declared that a person still employed by the government — Mrs. Clinton left the State Department in 2013 — could have faced disciplinary action for doing what she did.

To warrant a criminal charge, Mr. Comey said, there had to be evidence that Mrs. Clinton intentionally transmitted or willfully mishandled classified information. The F.B.I. found neither, and as a result, he said, “our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

nyt 2016

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Hillary Clinton, as a public defender, got a child rapist off to a much lower crime. She slandered the little girls reputation as a little minx.

Yeah.

And then was caught on tape laughing while telling the story, bragging about it.

Many lefties defended this by saying she was obligated to give him the best defense possible. Well, I remember back then that it was very uncool to bring any womans sexual activities outside the case into court. Let alone a pre-teen.

But Hillary got a pass.

a reply to: Annee

No idea.

I was talking about Sydney?

a reply to: Another_Nut

It says right there they didn't bring charges because they couldn't prove intent.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Annee

No idea.

I was talking about Sydney?

OK, learn not to post when people are distracting you.

That would be me.

a reply to: Threadbarer

Not charged because "our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

Is a far far cry from "exonerated"

Wouldnt you agree?

a reply to: Another_Nut

I would say they were unable to discover sufficient evidence that a crime was committed. I would say that investigators saying no crime was committed is pretty much an exoneration.

a reply to: Threadbarer

No, lol, it's not.

Unless you believe that Mrs. Clinton is.....above the law?

From Comey's book:

“Assuming, as nearly everyone did, that Hillary Clinton would be elected president of the United States in less than two weeks, what would happen to the FBI, the justice department or her own presidency if it later was revealed, after the fact, that she still was the subject of an FBI investigation?”

That's why the "no reasonable prosecutor" line was touted. He was looking out for himself and the FBI.


...not the law.

a reply to: JinMI

It is the law. Prosecutors have to prove mens rea. They couldn't do that. As a result the case was dropped.

a reply to: Threadbarer

Then they should have made it a civil case....right?

a reply to: Threadbarer

A former POTUS talked to the AG on a tarmac....nothing was going anywhere.

a reply to: Threadbarer

did they say "we cant charge her because no crime was committed" or did they say " "our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

maybe im confused and they did somewhere...because those are two very different things