Quote:
|
Originally Posted by h8kurdt
|
Honestly, h8kurdt, my confusion grows: no “deliberate” mishandling
If my understanding of the law is correct, it specifically states that intent is irrelevant.
If this is true, please understand that you or anyone else reading this would be going to prison for doing anything similar.
THIS is why I questioned the possibility of then President Obama granting immunity to Hillary the same way he did her attorney. If immunity was granted, there is no way Hillary could be prosecuted.
If intent is indeed irrelevant, then Hillary is receiving special treatment!
(don’t forget removing SIM cards & destroying cellphones after receiving subpoena)
If immunity was granted, as I’ve stated previously, I would consider that treasonous.
I was questioning possible traitorous activity based on actions and NOT skin tone or proper names.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by h8kurdt
So why start after his terms were over?
|
Because all of President Obama’s questionable actions took place in his final months-weeks-days & hours of office. Hillary’s attorney didn’t reveal the status of her immunity until she testified under oath earlier this year.