The EU debate - Part III

He'll be right back with a mix of accusation, obfuscation and denial.

 

The child rape accusation has been withdrawn, after the alleged victim received a ton of death threats.
He does have two class action lawsuits coming up for his Trump University scam, though.
One goes to court on the 28th of this month.

 

No. It is being honest

 

I had this issue with Pete on this thread, too.
He doesn't seem to realise that sometimes the most honest answer is, "I don't know".
I've had the same issue in discussions with religious lunatics in the past.
Some people just don't seem to be able to process it, for some reason.

 

Possibly because the FBI clearly say that there was evidence that the legislation was contravened.

 

Perhaps you should stop making assumptions about others, and then trying to claim them as fact.

Had he took to the streets, and used cameramen to pretend to be protesters because they couldn't find one that could string a sentence together, I'd have called him on it too.

As it is, he had a point, and that's been highlighted during the recent democratic revolution, that saw crooked Hillary kicked into touch.

 

Assumptions?

please log in to view this image

Fight like hell. March on Washington. Revolution. Stop this travesty.
He's clearly not talking about democracy. Just in case anyone was in doubt, he deleted them today.
According to his own words, America should have a popular uprising and remove this loser.
The electoral college is making a laughing stock out of the nation.

That won't happen, of course, and he'll be a complete hypocrite and take office.

 

If there's some part of no evidence of criminal behaviour that you don't understand, I'll do my best to explain it for you?...

 

I meant about me.

He highlighted a problem, demonstrated it exists, and tackled it democratically.

Crooked Hillary and co could learn a lot from him.

 

You've come late to the party, The issues were around the letter from the FBI earlier in the year, where they quite clearly say that there was.

Now if you want to shift to a new argument on something else, feel free, but make it clear. Ta.

 

What assumption did I make about you?

He highlighted a problem that wasn't actually an issue in that election, then threw a tantrum about it.
Now he's benefiting from that problem and has no qualms about it at all.
He's a hypocritical shyster, but you kiss his arse because he's a bigot.

 

There is no argument, apart from the one you're single handedly creating.

No evidence of criminal behaviour means just that. Nothing more.

 

For a start, you assumed I wouldn't complain if it was the other way round, which is false, as is your claim I kiss his arse, and that's been explained several times.

The bias in the system has been an issue for years, it's a big part of what Brexit and Trump was about.

 

When did I say that you wouldn't complain if it was the other way round?

You do kiss his arse and you still are. You parrot his catchphrases, FFS.

 

Single handed? There seems to be a few numpties trying to deny the written word of the FBI.

Here's the July findings of the FBI in question. Where does it say 'no evidence of criminal behaviour'?

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Although 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.

 

Thanks. So no criminal behaviour then?...

She was careless, not criminal.

 

More baseless assumptions from you.

I posted this earlier, as it states my position reasonably well.

 

here is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, .......

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.

 

It also says that decisions are made in the context of the person's activity. In other words was it negligent, or intentionally criminal?

It was decided it was not criminal, as the FBI have clearly stated. As in 'No evidence of criminal behaviiyr'

 

Where does it say "No evidence of criminal behaviour " which is what you claim. I've shown you it says the opposite, but they used discretion to decide that, on balance' they wouldn't prosecute.