The EU debate - Part III

I've listened to that before, it says nothing.

The conclusion reached was there was no evidence of criminal activity.

You can keep trying to spin it any way you like. That was the conclusion reached as was stated by Comey just recently.

 

I've posted similar views many times, yet you still choose to ignore it and make baseless assumptions. I was just trying a different tack so you can drop the tedious bullshit and we can move on.

 

What a load of crap. You've failed to answer to questions in that post itself, going off on one about something else instead.
Utterly transparent.

 

Grandmother, 72, who was raped by a 17-year-old asylum seeker after helping him out of a canal has 'lost the will to live'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...er-helping-canal-lost-live.html#ixzz4PihDG6Bj

 

You've claimed a ton of crap about Clinton and failed to recognise any of Trump's obvious failings repeatedly.
You were even attempting to defend him earlier today.
Watching one RT clip might've changed your mind, though. Wouldn't surprise me.

 

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.

 

Various reports about senior lawyers saying the government have been sounding out whether they can claim A50 is reversible at the supreme Court.

 

.. and they're reporting that in the Daily Mail? ... well cut me jackboots off and call me Eva ... whatever next?

 

That's just desperate wriggling. You make assumptions, and then ignore anything that shows they're bollocks.

 

... and they're reporting that in the Daily Mail? .... Holey Mole Chilli and Taco ... Viva Zapata!

 

That's concerning. A power struggle in Russia is the last thing needed right now.

 

I pointed out that you were utterly wrong about me making assumptions and asked you to point out where I'd done so.
You failed miserably to find anything, so you went off on a tangent instead, as usual.

I'll ask again, just to prove it: When did I say that you wouldn't complain if it was the other way round?
Is Trump a ****ing loon about climate change? Does that set him apart from Clinton.
I await your inevitable dodges and failure to address points put to you.

 

Yes, and for the very last time. They decided her actions were extremely careless. But, did not amount to criminal activity!

The word sanctions does not necessarily mean criminal prosecution.

 

You repeatedly make false assumptions, and ignore anything that shows they're bollocks. You then deflect, divert and wriggle.

It's boring.

 

Thanks for proving me right.
Two simple questions in the face of your endless evasion and you can't answer either. Pathetic.

 

You post that as if it's a quote, yet don't link the source. I at least posted the source saying there was evidence that the legislation was broken,

The funny thing is, in your desperation to leap in and argue, you've helped make the original one, where t'other numpty said she'd been cleared.

 

That'll be the two simple questions I've answered, among the many other daft things you've lobbed in to try and deflect the fact your assumptions were wrong.

Trying to claim it's me deflecting is laughable, you're jumping about all over the place.

 

You haven't answered either and can't. It's embarrassing.
All you can do is accuse others of doing exactly what you're doing.
It's something of a theme on this thread amongst your little group.

 

It sems to be a trend on here, where people make claims I haven't made, and then expect me to defend them, and accuse me of deflecting when I don't.

I've answered your questions, not that I have to, I mean, who are you anyway, but for the sake of peace, ask them again clearly, and make sure they're not founded in your assumptions and I'll answer them yet again.