The EU debate - Part III

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
no it wasn't
the chant was "lock her up"
that didn't mean without a fair trial
I don't think "lock her up after a fair trial" would be so effective as a chant
I'm interested to know how you know this. I've never met any of the people chanting this. I'm just taking their words at face value. You seem to know what is behind them.
 
As the discussion is about neither, I'll just tick that down to another bit of shifting from you.

You said she was cleared, but you've posted nothing at all to prove that other than a sub editors scribbling in a newspaper headline.

I said that the FBI investigation concluded that there was evidence of crime, and that there would likely to be consequences for such actions in other cases, but that on balance, it wasn't seen as enough to justify proposing prosecution on this occasion. I posted the FBI report that says that.

Comey quotes
'We cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges based on these facts'

He goes on to say
'To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences .... those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.'

It seems clear to me that Clinton did wrong and in normal circumstances would face punishment, but the punishment would not be criminal. So Clinton was cleared of criminal charges but what she did was wrong. It also seems clear to me that you are attempting to combine the admission of wrongdoing with a claim that it was criminal, something that is not supported.
 
Let's make this easier then:
Is Clinton innocent?
Is Clinton guilty?
is Clinton crooked?
As I tried to explain earlier she hasn't technically been 'cleared' because she has never been tried.

You keep changing the point you made. I'll take that as the realisation you were wrong.

She hasn't been 'cleared' which was your claim. You now seem to agree, even if it is for different reasons. <ok>

The FBI quite clearly say that there was evidence to show that the law had been broken, and that others in that situation would suffer consequences. That is NOT cleared.
 
Last edited:
Comey quotes
'We cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges based on these facts'

He goes on to say
'To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences .... those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.'

It seems clear to me that Clinton did wrong and in normal circumstances would face punishment, but the punishment would not be criminal. So Clinton was cleared of criminal charges but what she did was wrong. It also seems clear to me that you are attempting to combine the admission of wrongdoing with a claim that it was criminal, something that is not supported.

The claim was that she was cleared. You yourself say that she wasn't.
Oh, and the punishment could well be criminal.
 
That's exactly the sort of evasive answer I was referring to earlier. What criminal behaviour has she even been charged with? What 'scandals'.
evasive?
I thought you were accusing people of saying she should be locked up without a fair trial
now when somebody says something else you are not happy with that either
maybe you are just not a very happy person?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DMD
You keep changing the point you made. I'll take that as the realisation you were wrong.

She hasn't been 'cleared' which was your claim. You now seem to agere, even if it is for different reasons. <ok>

The FBI quite clearly say that there was evidence to show that the law had been broken, and that others in that situation would suffer consequences. That is NOT cleared.
1) I have never claimed she was cleared, i was trying to remove the source of disagreement between you and PnP.
2) The point is that the evidence of criminal action is insufficient to bring criminal charges of which she could be 'cleared'
3) To say that she hasn't been cleared (which is your claim above) is incorrect because it could only be true if she had both been charged and been found guilty, neither of which has happened.
 
  • Like
Reactions: steveninaster1
evasive?
I thought you were accusing people of saying she should be locked up without a fair trial
now when somebody says something else you are not happy with that either
maybe you are just not a very happy person?
I wasn't 'accusing' anyone of anything. Merely stating a fact that chants of 'lock her up' were being made towards an innocent person. If you are happy with that state of affairs then good luck to you.
 
I wasn't 'accusing' anyone of anything. Merely stating a fact that chants of 'lock her up' were being made towards an innocent person. If you are happy with that state of affairs then good luck to you.
I've explained a lot and now you are just going back to your default rant mode
 
The claim was that she was cleared. You yourself say that she wasn't.
Oh, and the punishment could well be criminal.

She was cleared of criminal charges and the FBI report does not support your claim that the punishment could be criminal, it states the complete opposite.

You seem rather desperate to proove an unsupported position. An agenda perhaps?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tobes
Hasn't Trump sill got a rape accusation and a dozen sexual assault accusations hanging over his head like?

Clinton has been cleared of wrong doing over the e-mails, unfortunately only after 10 million Shermans had already cast their vote.

Just saying....
 
She was cleared of criminal charges and the FBI report does not support your claim that the punishment could be criminal, it states the complete opposite.

You seem rather desperate to proove an unsupported position. An agenda perhaps?

Standard Dull tactics.

He'll drone on and on until everybody else gets bored ****less and gives up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.