The EU debate - Part III

I'll answer those together, because your filibustering is cluttering the place up.

Does it say she's cleared or does it say she handled top secret documents in a way that is contrary to the law?

 

It says that no reasonable prosecutor would touch the case.
Your rabid lunacy sees that as hang her, she's guilty. Says it all, really.

 

^^^^^^^^^

And there you go guys....the battle of the heavyweights " I must always be right"

 

You're shifting.

Your claim was the FBI cleared her.

The report says that she handled top secret documents in a way contrary to the law.

 

I don't care about being right or wrong, it's a discussion on the accuracy of claims. They're being argued, not me.

 

The FBI did clear her. She's not being prosecuted, as they don't have a case.
Comey said as much in that press conference and he was panned for being political in it.
Then the Department of Justice told him not to notify congress about the new emails until they knew something and he did it anyway.

This is a man that you think is being paid off by the Clinton camp.
I know you're stuck in the alt-right response loop, but just shouting EMAILS in response to everything doesn't cut it, I'm afraid.

 

You have your views, Poll has his views, they are never going to be aligned. Wouldnt it just be easier to move on?

 

Where did I say he was being paid off?

The report from the FBI, not Fox, the Daily Mail or Breidbart, but the FBI, says she handled documents in a way that is contrary to the law, but decided in balance, not to prosecute,

That's not 'clearing' her as you claim. Obama and Clinton herself admit they're not innocent, they claim it was just a mistake.

 

But mine are right!

 

He can have his own opinion, but not his own facts. She wasn't cleared, she herself admits some of what she did, that's just a simple fact.

 

You've literally posted the transcript of the FBI saying that they don't have a case as your evidence of her being guilty.
Think about that for a minute, then post some more mindless ****e.

 

Your not female by any chance?

 

Stop trying to hit on me. No, I'm not.

 

Your shifting again and arguing a different claim to the one you started with. You claimed they cleared her.

You've yet to post anything that says they cleared her, which was your claim.

The FBI report clearly says she handled top secret documents in a way that is contrary to the law, but in balance decided not to prosecute. That is not clearing her, it's letting her off.

there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

 

What the **** do you think cleared her means?
Comey's talking about non-criminal punishment in his last sentence and there's no reason for him to even mention that.
It's one of the reasons why he was criticised for being so openly partisan.

Clinton was negligent. Nobody's disputed that.
She wasn't criminally negligent though, which is why she's been cleared. Repeatedly.
She hasn't been let off, that's just your spin on it, which is clearly bullshit.

 

I'm not worried.

And I set the agenda on here Kustard. I talk about what I want, when I want, how I want, with who I want. Did I forget where? And yeh, where I want!

As for Trump? Well I have to say his sense of American protectionism may just be a ****ing blessing for the rest of us. If that happens I won't begrudge him.

My worry though is that there are enough wolves in the shadows of the republican party who are ready to get their claws back into U.S. global policy making. ****s like Wolfiwitz, Rumsfeld, Searle, Bolton. If Trump really IS the maverick he portrays himself to be, he'll want nothing to do with those warmongering filth.

 

I'd expect 'cleared' to mean something other than what the FBI report put.
'Cleared' would say there is NO evidence of the law being broken. Does it say that?

"there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."

That's not "cleared", it's evidence that the law was broken, she was in deed criminally negligent, but it's not in the public interest to prosecute on this occasion. ie, let off.

 

^^^^^^

I love watching two people arguing whether grey is black or white.

 

It's obviously both.

 

Exactly!