The EU debate - Part III

let's make it even easier
innocent or guilty of what?

 

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.

 

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.

 

Of committing a crime, obviously

 

common sense
common sense is always better than stupidity

 

she hasn't been found guilty yet but she does seem to get involved in rather a lot of criminal scandals

 

That's exactly the sort of evasive answer I was referring to earlier. What criminal behaviour has she even been charged with? What 'scandals'.

 

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.

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.

 

The claim was that she was cleared. You yourself say that she wasn't.
Oh, and the punishment could well be criminal.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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

 

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?

 

In my experience what people claim as 'common sense' is often really stupidity.

 

Power is right. You can only be cleared if you've been tried.

The FBI looked at the evidence and concluded that there was no evidence of criminal behaviour.

http://news.sky.com/story/fbi-no-evidence-of-crime-in-clinton-emails-10648486

 

I prefer my experience to yours any day

 

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....

 

You've responded to none of my arguments and answered none of my questions and I've been unfailingly polite at all times

 

Standard Dull tactics.

He'll drone on and on until everybody else gets bored ****less and gives up.