Jump to content
Dashinka

The FBI is re-opening its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server

By Dashinka in Current Events and Hot Social Topics

 Share

134 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Boiler Grand Master

Boiler   46,418

Posted
Filed: K-1 Visa Country: Wales
 Timeline
Posted

Certainly if Crooked does not get another pass.

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

  • Replies 133
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

TBoneTX
TBoneTX

"The FBI cannot assess whether or not this material may be significant," Comey wrote, and "I cannot predict how long it will take us to complete this additional work." "However, I predict that my sui

Teddy B
Teddy B

I remember my childhood computer days fondly.

smilesammich
smilesammich

i was so popular on aim, errybody wanted to chat it up

Voice of Reason Grand Master

Voice of Reason   10,298

Posted
Filed: Timeline
Posted

Because USC is very clear. Most anyone with a minuscule understanding of government documents can read and understand it. Nothing "rando" about it. It's pretty clear. Hillary is not a retired officer of the Armed Forces.

Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term office does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

Uh, because the Constitution and stuff????

https://ssrn.com/abstract=2650328

But I'm sure some rando's parsing of statute is more correct than Tillman, or Volokh, who came to a similar conclusion.

(Psssst: the hint is in Powell v. McCormack.)

TBoneTX Grand Master

TBoneTX   46,457

Posted
Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Ecuador
 Timeline
Posted

A tasteless off-topic post and quote of it have been removed.

06-04-2007 = TSC stamps postal return-receipt for I-129f.

06-11-2007 = NOA1 date (unknown to me).

07-20-2007 = Phoned Immigration Officer; got WAC#; where's NOA1?

09-25-2007 = Touch (first-ever).

09-28-2007 = NOA1, 23 days after their 45-day promise to send it (grrrr).

10-20 & 11-14-2007 = Phoned ImmOffs; "still pending."

12-11-2007 = 180 days; file is "between workstations, may be early Jan."; touches 12/11 & 12/12.

12-18-2007 = Call; file is with Division 9 ofcr. (bckgrnd check); e-prompt to shake it; touch.

12-19-2007 = NOA2 by e-mail & web, dated 12-18-07 (187 days; 201 per VJ); in mail 12/24/07.

01-09-2008 = File from USCIS to NVC, 1-4-08; NVC creates file, 1/15/08; to consulate 1/16/08.

01-23-2008 = Consulate gets file; outdated Packet 4 mailed to fiancee 1/27/08; rec'd 3/3/08.

04-29-2008 = Fiancee's 4-min. consular interview, 8:30 a.m.; much evidence brought but not allowed to be presented (consul: "More proof! Second interview! Bring your fiance!").

05-05-2008 = Infuriating $12 call to non-English-speaking consulate appointment-setter.

05-06-2008 = Better $12 call to English-speaker; "joint" interview date 6/30/08 (my selection).

06-30-2008 = Stokes Interrogations w/Ecuadorian (not USC); "wait 2 weeks; we'll mail her."

07-2008 = Daily calls to DOS: "currently processing"; 8/05 = Phoned consulate, got Section Chief; wrote him.

08-07-08 = E-mail from consulate, promising to issue visa "as soon as we get her passport" (on 8/12, per DHL).

08-27-08 = Phoned consulate (they "couldn't find" our file); visa DHL'd 8/28; in hand 9/1; through POE on 10/9 with NO hassles(!).

smilesammich Grand Master

smilesammich   10,727

Posted
Filed: Lift. Cond. (apr) Country: Canada
 Timeline
Posted

I have really impeccable taste for a straight middle of the road guy

i'm tasteless. no fit for cehst. keepin the p and t duo busy.

wonder whatever will be done with family friendliness if big daddy rump wins the potus.

elmcitymaven Grand Master

elmcitymaven   9,712

Posted
Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: United Kingdom
 Timeline
Posted

Because USC is very clear. Most anyone with a minuscule understanding of government documents can read and understand it. Nothing "rando" about it. It's pretty clear. Hillary is not a retired officer of the Armed Forces.

I'm afraid I can read statutes and I believe I might be able to parse them a little better than you. :)

larissa-lima-says-who-is-against-the-que

Teddy B Grand Master

Teddy B   17,252

Posted
Filed: Lift. Cond. (apr) Country: Canada
 Timeline
Posted

Uh, because the Constitution and stuff????

https://ssrn.com/abstract=2650328

But I'm sure some rando's parsing of statute is more correct than Tillman, or Volokh, who came to a similar conclusion.

(Psssst: the hint is in Powell v. McCormack.)

That worthless rag? Everyone who's anyone knows the only part of the Constitution worth any weight is the 2nd. The rest is all a waste of perfectly good tree pulp.

elmcitymaven Grand Master

elmcitymaven   9,712

Posted
Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: United Kingdom
 Timeline
Posted

That worthless rag? Everyone who's anyone knows the only part of the Constitution worth any weight is the 2nd. The rest is all a waste of perfectly good tree pulp.

UGH! And then all of that worthless case law that sets so-called "precedents"? Who the hell is this "Volokh" guy anyway?

larissa-lima-says-who-is-against-the-que

TBoneTX Grand Master

TBoneTX   46,457

Posted
Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Ecuador
 Timeline
Posted (edited)

As is plain, Hillary and Trump are running for precedent.

One or the other (or both, or neither) is a tortfeasor*.

Still awaiting pro bono fancy werds about search/seizure, stop/identify, et al.** in other thread.

*one of favorite words, along with yak (noun or verb) and springbok

**et al. = fancy legal werds

Edited by TBoneTX

06-04-2007 = TSC stamps postal return-receipt for I-129f.

06-11-2007 = NOA1 date (unknown to me).

07-20-2007 = Phoned Immigration Officer; got WAC#; where's NOA1?

09-25-2007 = Touch (first-ever).

09-28-2007 = NOA1, 23 days after their 45-day promise to send it (grrrr).

10-20 & 11-14-2007 = Phoned ImmOffs; "still pending."

12-11-2007 = 180 days; file is "between workstations, may be early Jan."; touches 12/11 & 12/12.

12-18-2007 = Call; file is with Division 9 ofcr. (bckgrnd check); e-prompt to shake it; touch.

12-19-2007 = NOA2 by e-mail & web, dated 12-18-07 (187 days; 201 per VJ); in mail 12/24/07.

01-09-2008 = File from USCIS to NVC, 1-4-08; NVC creates file, 1/15/08; to consulate 1/16/08.

01-23-2008 = Consulate gets file; outdated Packet 4 mailed to fiancee 1/27/08; rec'd 3/3/08.

04-29-2008 = Fiancee's 4-min. consular interview, 8:30 a.m.; much evidence brought but not allowed to be presented (consul: "More proof! Second interview! Bring your fiance!").

05-05-2008 = Infuriating $12 call to non-English-speaking consulate appointment-setter.

05-06-2008 = Better $12 call to English-speaker; "joint" interview date 6/30/08 (my selection).

06-30-2008 = Stokes Interrogations w/Ecuadorian (not USC); "wait 2 weeks; we'll mail her."

07-2008 = Daily calls to DOS: "currently processing"; 8/05 = Phoned consulate, got Section Chief; wrote him.

08-07-08 = E-mail from consulate, promising to issue visa "as soon as we get her passport" (on 8/12, per DHL).

08-27-08 = Phoned consulate (they "couldn't find" our file); visa DHL'd 8/28; in hand 9/1; through POE on 10/9 with NO hassles(!).

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
- Back to Top -

Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...