First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Post Reply hillary ,"disqualified"
runec 
28348 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/12/16

Punk_Mela wrote:
Do you not realize how broken your back is by the way you twist and turn to find answers and more so do you not just find it sad? Seeing how the information destroyed by hammers was SUBPOENAED, it was going to be reused, so that wrecks that very fragile farce. And in my time in the Navy we often had to dispose of classified material as well as devices that had received classified material, it was a process that required a lot of paperwork but oddly enough no hammers, you are delusion if you think classified material or device being destroyed by a hammer is any legal government process in any US department.


Don't yell at me. Yell at the State department: https://www.wired.com/2016/09/actually-clinton-destroyed-phones-better/



Punk_Mela wrote:
As for your "intent" comment, don't leave it to "armchair lawyers", here is a link to a career prosecutor walking us through the intent charge, try to ignore the FBI director testifying about the Mrs. Clinton's perjury, well I don't need to tell you to ignore it though.


A career prosecutor is not the Supreme Court. You know, highest court in the land and all that? The Espionage Act has been problematic since its inception so there's a lot of case law and Supreme Court rulings on it. Only one person was ever been charged under that section on the basis of gross negligence prior to the intent ruling and he wasn't even convicted. And he was banging a Chinese spy for months.

The Supreme Court has spoken. If you want to yell about it, yell at Justice Reed. He is dead though so could be a bit tricky.
5318 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 10/12/16 , edited 10/12/16

runec wrote:


Punk_Mela wrote:
Do you not realize how broken your back is by the way you twist and turn to find answers and more so do you not just find it sad? Seeing how the information destroyed by hammers was SUBPOENAED, it was going to be reused, so that wrecks that very fragile farce. And in my time in the Navy we often had to dispose of classified material as well as devices that had received classified material, it was a process that required a lot of paperwork but oddly enough no hammers, you are delusion if you think classified material or device being destroyed by a hammer is any legal government process in any US department.


Don't yell at me. Yell at the State department: https://www.wired.com/2016/09/actually-clinton-destroyed-phones-better/



Punk_Mela wrote:
As for your "intent" comment, don't leave it to "armchair lawyers", here is a link to a career prosecutor walking us through the intent charge, try to ignore the FBI director testifying about the Mrs. Clinton's perjury, well I don't need to tell you to ignore it though.


A career prosecutor is not the Supreme Court. You know, highest court in the land and all that? The Espionage Act has been problematic since its inception so there's a lot of case law and Supreme Court rulings on it. Only one person was ever been charged under that section on the basis of gross negligence prior to the intent ruling and he wasn't even convicted. And he was banging a Chinese spy for months.


The Supreme Court has spoken. If you want to yell about it, yell at Justice Reed. He is dead though so could be a bit tricky.



No one is yelling, not even writing in caps, you don't have to be so defensive when people call your BS.

Now for the red: Arguing that "Hillary Clinton destroyed evidence illegally but more effectively" is just about as stupid as citing Wired as a reputable source. Are you 12?

As for the blue: you clearly did not read or watch the evidence I was kind enough to deliver for you, so I'll go one further and sum up what happened:

a career prosecutor with more than 2 decades of experience presented a case for Hillary to be charged BASED ON INTENT, NOT ON GROSS NEGLIGENCE. With more than 20 years of experience in criminal prosecution he felt this would be enough to show intent for conviction, but at the very least it is well more than enough to afford an indictment and trial which didn't happen and only an idiot would think there shouldn't even have been a trial.

Also, I know I was the one who said ignore the part where the FBI director testifies to Hillary lying about her email, but I was joking don't actually ignore that. Also grounds for disqualification. I'm done responding though, you are clearly beyond help seeing how you neither read the other users posts nor respond to the points they make. You simply veer off into irrelevant digressions that keep you in your safe little bubble and that is boring and a waste of time for everyone else.
16853 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 10/12/16 , edited 10/12/16

rawratl wrote:

It's a nice meme, and we could make 8 million spam threads with Donald memes. However, in this code it specifically states "unlawfully," and I'm assuming this is all about the email servers again. The issue is, the FBI declared the whole debacle irresponsible but not illegal, and she has not been prosecuted for anything. So none of this matters. We can sit here and turn this into another 40 page political thread but it would all be for naught, until they prosecute and convict her of something.


She has hid evidence from the FBI and congress, lied about the contents of the emails, lied about the number of those emails, evidence of planned destruction of emails all directly to congress and under oath. I could go on...

She told wall street investors in Canada, during a paid speech, top secret information about the location of bin laden, their sources, and about their informants. Any of which could have put the whole operation at risk and caused all of those special forces to be killed.

Plus she allowed people to bribe their way into office in mass. A governor did something similar and got 15 years for 2 people bribing their way in.
runec 
28348 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/12/16

Punk_Mela wrote:
No one is yelling, not even writing in caps, you don't have to be so defensive when people call your BS.


Mhmm.



Punk_Mela wrote:Now for the red: Arguing that "Hillary Clinton destroyed evidence illegally but more effectively" is just about as stupid as citing Wired as a reputable source. Are you 12?


Whether the devices were destroyed due to procedure, malfeasance or a bit of both is certainly open to debate. But it is not the red hot smoking gun you think it is.




Punk_Mela wrote:a career prosecutor with more than 2 decades of experience presented a case for Hillary to be charged BASED ON INTENT, NOT ON GROSS NEGLIGENCE. With more than 20 years of experience in criminal prosecution he felt this would be enough to show intent for conviction, but at the very least it is well more than enough to afford an indictment and trial which didn't happen and only an idiot would think there shouldn't even have been a trial.


No, a partisan member of the opposing party, Trump supporter, member of the Tea Party and head of the immense waste of taxpayer money that was the Benghazi committee is doing what he's been doing for years. Which is lead a partisan witch hunt after a political opponent.

I am sorry that the law is not what you hoped/wished it to be but neither is this some sort of high level Godfather conspiracy.



Punk_Mela wrote:
I'm done responding though, you are clearly beyond help seeing how you neither read the other users posts nor respond to the points they make. You simply veer off into irrelevant digressions that keep you in your safe little bubble and that is boring and a waste of time for everyone else.


Yes, ad hominem attacks and flouncing off under a supposed guise of superiority are clear signs of someone that has handily won a debate.

<cough>





36022 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Georgia, USA
Offline
Posted 10/12/16
Nothing wrong with ingroup preference.
Emtro 
1569 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M
Online
Posted 10/12/16


The problem is this is based on US law. While her criminal enterprise owns the DOJ, she is immune to such frivolous legalities as US law. If she wasn't, she'd have been shot for treason by now, along with Barack Obama, and all of their criminal associates.
14787 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/12/16 , edited 10/12/16
It started long before the Birther campaign:
Ever since Bill Clinton got off that Impeachment trial, there's been the Republican obsession that since Democratic presidents are never unpopular enough to be voted out of office, they have to be "disqualified" out of office--
And then, of course, that means that any legislation they made IN office wouldn't count, and have to be rescinded by the Supreme Court, so there, neenerz!

Since this doesn't involve any actual birth documents of nationality, can we call this latest last-ditch "Get rid of 'em on a technicality" strategy the "Wish Them Into the Cornfield" campaign?
Posted 10/12/16
op said it all - no rule of law....I think that's perhaps one difference between plutocracy and outright oligarchy...
qwueri 
16478 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 10/12/16

Emtro wrote:

The problem is this is based on US law. While her criminal enterprise owns the DOJ, she is immune to such frivolous legalities as US law. If she wasn't, she'd have been shot for treason by now, along with Barack Obama, and all of their criminal associates.


Did this little gem of insight come from radio or a youtube channel? Because you'd think that if Clinton somehow had criminal corruption in the DOJ that one of those Republican committees that have been hounding her for over a decade would be all over that. Or do her lizard tendrils run so deep that she's got the RNC in her pocket as well?
Posted 10/12/16
Its a quaint notion that the DNC and RNC are not owned by the same folks, regardless of what petty bickering goes on there. When the chips are down, its them vs us, almost every time - and especially when its a matter of "national security" (i.e. the plebes cant find out about certain oligarch crimes.)

Follow the money, who owns the money - and why its not money any longer, but debt-based currency that can be debased at will.
runec 
28348 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/12/16
I like how refreshingly honest and up front your user name is.
Posted 10/12/16
Heh, thanks. I like up front honesty, even if it is blunt....but that tends to get one misinterpreted at times
13153 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 10/12/16
At this point, it seems Clinton's disqualification is the only way that the Donald can win. I wish you guys the best.
Posted 10/12/16
They're certainly going to have to commit a LOT of electoral and voter fraud in order to pull off a win for clinton. That's why the more people know about the guns, drugs, murders, corruption, selling of state secrets, funding ISIS through shadow companies, its all coming out...and that is all precisely why trump said she'd be in jail if he were president - we wouldnt have orders coming from the top to stifle investigations.

And that's if one believes hillary isnt already dead, as ABC news 7 reported after her last collapse on 9/11 on their breaking news at 11pm. Hillary has looked mighty healthy since then, no coughing or loss of motor control - which is very odd for it having visibly progressed for the last 4 years and now all of a sudden she's looking WAY more healthy than someone with a degenerative neurological condition could exhibit.
14787 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/12/16 , edited 10/12/16

RaisedInACult wrote:
And that's if one believes hillary isnt already dead, as ABC news 7 reported after her last collapse on 9/11 on their breaking news at 11pm. Hillary has looked mighty healthy since then, no coughing or loss of motor control - which is very odd for it having visibly progressed for the last 4 years and now all of a sudden she's looking WAY more healthy than someone with a degenerative neurological condition could exhibit.


So...you're saying that, like Paul McCartney, she's NOT "really" the Hillary of Bill's era, then--Well, that would actually solve a lot of the problems voters have been complaining about, wouldn't it?

Me, I think recent nuttiness suggests that Trump was replaced sometime after the 80's, but...nah, he's still the guy that ran the USFL into the ground.
Posted 10/12/16 , edited 10/12/16
hehe....nah, it totally would not - hillary is a globalist first and foremost, and if they are indeed employing theresa barnswell a bit more thoroughly these days, then you can bet that she will also be doing as she's told.

USFL, bad choice trying to go against the NFL - certainly all of trump's business decisions haven't been good ones.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.