apparently not. The statute that Comey considered charging Hillary under required intent.Nostradamus'omh » 23 Jun 2023, 6:09 am » wrote: ↑ Doesn't it fall under conspiracy to commit abuse of power by an elected official, felony, dishonoring the Constitution, treason?
All separate interpretations of living exceeds evolving here in plain sight. actions are balancing with reactions. When two sides collide everyone suffers the ignoring of self evident displacement.maineman » 23 Jun 2023, 10:05 am » wrote: ↑ apparently not. The statute that Comey considered charging Hillary under required intent.
The statute that Smith indicted the clown under does NOT require intent.
Show me where Hillary lied? Do you have evidence of her lying?Nostradamus'omh » 23 Jun 2023, 8:32 am » wrote: ↑ ha ha ha ha ha this is the same **** that went on when Hillary was first lady hiding raw data FBI files in her east wing closet. And when testifying all she would say is "I don't recall.".
then did the same **** during the 2016 election cycle. damn near 30 years of that ****. Wait, I forgot why she was removed from the watergate investigation,
46 years of corrupted behavior. Kind of in the same path as Biden family followed as did the two generations of Clintons. Is not Chelsea eyeballs deep in global money laundering.
^^^^illiterate *** who **** his own daughter.Beekeeper » 23 Jun 2023, 8:29 am » wrote: ↑ Well, kneegrow, TRUMP was President and covered totally under the Presidential Records Act which gives HIM totally the ability to call any record he wants a PERSONAL RECORD.
Biden was VP and or Senator and had ZERO LEGAL BASIS OR AUTHORITY to possess ANY of those documents anyplace OUTSIDE of a SECURE AREA FOR HIM TO VIEW!!
See the difference, GROOMER??
who are you? Simple question to avoid what one was since conceived. Hillary was just another female replacement of her own previous generations of combined chromosomes changing shape and form ancestrally since inception of the species native to this atmosphere.Pastafarian » 23 Jun 2023, 11:04 am » wrote: ↑ Show me where Hillary lied? Do you have evidence of her lying?
All you have is speculation.
I can’t help it if your cult leader is a **** moron.
That makes you a follower of a moron. Now that is low.
https://youtu.be/opPh9uG29cQPastafarian » 23 Jun 2023, 11:04 am » wrote: ↑ Show me where Hillary lied? Do you have evidence of her lying?
All you have is speculation.
I can’t help it if your cult leader is a **** moron.
That makes you a follower of a moron. Now that is low.
Now prove she lied.
You can ALWAYS tell when a kneegrow gets his ARSE KICKED into the next week!!Pastafarian » 23 Jun 2023, 11:07 am » wrote: ↑ ^^^^illiterate *** who **** his own daughter.
You are in denial, incest boy.
Go get your gun and stomp your feet.
Your boy Comey just stated that SHE LIED, DUMBARSE. Do you need and INTERPRETER to translate into Ebonics for you??
Space geographically here is what a body occupies at the same time all other reproductions existing in series parallel evolving situation are to specificity eveything here is of what was and is taking place now.Xavier_Onassis » 23 Jun 2023, 11:30 am » wrote: ↑ All any lifetime ever has been occupying time now. You still want to play self deception until extinction?
Time is not something you occupy. You cannot move into Wednesday and live there for the rest of your life.
What game are YOU playing until extinction, sole? The gibbergibbergibber game?
The "Nostradamus Sent Me" game?
Well isn't that special? Either decision was obviously a subjective one, right? Comey did not want to charge a fellow deep state dim-0-crap,the many titted empress, with anything so he let her skate. Trump is public enemy #1 and will likely be braindead biden's opponent in 2024 (that is if braindead biden makes it that long) so he gets the book thrown at him for basically the same offense.maineman » 23 Jun 2023, 10:05 am » wrote: ↑ apparently not. The statute that Comey considered charging Hillary under required intent.
The statute that Smith indicted the clown under does NOT require intent.
Beekeeper » 21 Jun 2023, 6:06 am » wrote: ↑ Then SHOW US where the ARCHIVIST is the one who makes a determination as to what is Presidential and which are PERSONAL, ****!!
Come on now, SURELY you can back up your claim. And yes, the ARCHIVIST stores records, but WHERE do your find AUTHORITY TO CLASSIFY WHICH IS WHICH!!!
!!
You have to be THE most OBTUSE LWNJ POS that ever sucked air.
ha ha ha hahahaha. you know how to tell the difference between role plying a social narrative and adapting to space mutually evolving as genetic results are only existing as eternally separated when alive now? That time being alive is conceived to dead and evolving doesn't stop until decomposition is completed.Pastafarian » 23 Jun 2023, 11:04 am » wrote: ↑ Show me where Hillary lied? Do you have evidence of her lying?
All you have is speculation.
I can’t help it if your cult leader is a **** moron.
That makes you a follower of a moron. Now that is low.
The RULE clearly states that the PRESIDENT separates PERSONAL from PRESIDENTIAL and ONLY HE can make the determination which is which, ****!! The ARCHIVIST has NO SAY in that matter and neither does anyone else, LOSER!!jerrab » 23 Jun 2023, 2:46 pm » wrote: ↑ the rules clearly state what is government and what is personal.
and trump has already admitted some documents are not personal.
How can the "ARCHIVIST" make a determination on documents he has yet to see?Beekeeper » 23 Jun 2023, 3:24 pm » wrote: ↑ The RULE clearly states that the PRESIDENT separates PERSONAL from PRESIDENTIAL and ONLY HE can make the determination which is which, ****!! The ARCHIVIST has NO SAY in that matter and neither does anyone else, LOSER!!
You are dumber than a boxcar of rocks.
it is carefully spelled out which are government documents and which are personal documents, even a child can tell the difference.Beekeeper » 23 Jun 2023, 3:24 pm » wrote: ↑ The RULE clearly states that the PRESIDENT separates PERSONAL from PRESIDENTIAL and ONLY HE can make the determination which is which, ****!! The ARCHIVIST has NO SAY in that matter and neither does anyone else, LOSER!!
You are dumber than a boxcar of rocks.
1.02Beekeeper » 23 Jun 2023, 3:24 pm » wrote: ↑ The RULE clearly states that the PRESIDENT separates PERSONAL from PRESIDENTIAL and ONLY HE can make the determination which is which, ****!! The ARCHIVIST has NO SAY in that matter and neither does anyone else, LOSER!!
You are dumber than a boxcar of rocks.
And you JUST PROVED that Trump had EVERY LEGAL RIGHT to go though, determine AGAIN what was PERSONAL and what was PRESIDENTIAL as he LEGALLY BY LAW has every right to do. PERIOD!!