That is speculative, to be kind. You have absolutely no way to prove that the email server was setup for that purpose. To demonstrate their intent you would need something that you have no evidence to support.
Typically later actions are enough to prove intent. You're really bending over backward to give her the benefit of the doubt, and I understand that. But if it were you or I this is extra jail time.
Do you have a source for that?
Yes, in fact I do.
Nobody has shown that such an offense happened.
Yes, that's tampering with evidence. Try pulling this kind of nonsense if you're involved with a subpoena and see what happens. Prosecutors and judges will not accept "You can't prove what I deleted has any connection to the case" as a valid defense.
Upgraded suspensions and other parts do not change the laws of physics. SUVs have a high center of gravity, and there is no way to change this short of perhaps sticking a bunch of tungsten plates in the floorboards. They are not safe at high speeds, and I really don't care what tests police departments have done. Those same departments thought Crown Vics were safe cars at high speeds, and they're not. They handle like boats (yes, I've driven them).
Americans in general don't have a clue what constitutes a safe vehicle at high speeds. They don't even know what handling is. There's a reason police in Germany would never use vehicles like that. Americans just slap a big engine in something and then think that makes it capable of high speeds, and for a drag strip, they're right, but that's it. But of course, Americans have little concept that roads might have something in them called "curves".
There is no standard-required way to compare arbitrary pointers.
There is no standard-required integer type into which you can cast an arbitrary pointer. (intptr_t etc are technically optional).
It's architecture-specific whether comparing pointers as signed or unsigned is the correct thing to do.
There is no such thing as portable C because of crap like this, only "mostly portable C, eh, good enough".
I used to be good friends with a theater owner. He told me he actually loses money on the tickets - all of it and more went to the movie distributer. The food was expensive because that's where some of his expenses and all his profit came from.
You should be tired and worn out with all those hoops you are jumping through to maintain that point.
Seriously, do you not understand how convoluted you are trying to get here? Let me simplify it for you. If i said find a pencil that is missin , i don't expect you to break into a house, I don't expect you to mug anyone, i expect you to look around the areas in your control to see if you can find it.
C will fail to help you make a chip.
I've used and modified C programs that took SPICE output to optimize IC circuit speed, and interfaced with part of Verilog to calculate gate loading and speed. C was essential to our process of chipmaking.
Assuming you know the legally defined charge of treason in the U.S., what exactly did trump do that meets this definition?
Nope. It has to be enemies. It specifically says enemies.
No, The reason no one heard of those is because security measures were in place and there wasn't a record of people asking and being denied extra security.
The reason benghazi is so known is because it was one blunder after another and we know that the political nature was in not sending support in or even attempting a rescue in order to avoid political fallout of the appearance of U.S. troops invading a foreign country.
For what it is worth, I think the host country of any embassy should protect it and if they appear unable or unwilling we should be able to send an entire army in if necessary for the protection and removal of people and they can kiss our asses if they object.
Yes. . Exactly.
Why can't people just understand that Hilary will push the envelope of what is legal to the point it looks illegal but isn't technically chargeable. You know, it depends on the meaning of the word "is" type shit. So many loopholes it will give you whiplash trying to follow the action.
This is why she should be the next president. We know that despite how it looks, no matter how deplorable, unethical, or blatantly violating the law it appears, it will all be legal. . At least what can legally be proven anyways.
She is the status-quo. In international matters, we do not fear her, because we already know how the USA under the Clinton empire family works.
Trump is, potentially, a lot *worse*
And the obvious rebuttal is a) she is a really lousy status quo, and b) Trump has been kicking around for a while too. He's just as much a known quantity since he's been kicking around a while and has made a lot of noise for a long time.
much of the world is ready to declare it is the start of the apocalypse if he wins (which will pave the way for right-wing extremists everywhere).
Ever think about the dynamics of why that happens rather than just worry about it? If there weren't so many "right-wing extremists" and they weren't heavily marginalized by society, then all the "paving" in the world wouldn't create a problem.
Or maybe it's only a problem because you're not the one exploiting the discontented?
Decaffeinated coffee? Just Say No.