The EU debate - Part III

I know, I left the ellipses to sow there was more, and put a link for anyone to read the lot. You've hung your hat on that before, and watched it blow away in the wind because it changes nothing.

 

Read all about it.....

Google is to open a new headquarters building in London which could see 3,000 new jobs created by 2020.

 

So Hull is correct then? Based on probability, it was unlikely that charging her would bring a conviction. So she wasn't exactly cleared then.
Glad we cleared that up and can move onto something else, happy to be of assistance

 

You've posted an article that contradicts what you're saying. Did you even read it?
It was filed and refiled a number of times.

It changes what he's saying entirely.
He dismisses the earlier part of the sentence, which is the bit that you keep quoting.
This has been pointed out to you repeatedly, so this is as pointless as everything else that involves you on this thread.

 

There was no evidence that she'd committed a crime.
Comey says potential violations may have been made. He can't even find anything worthwhile and admits as much.
Hull's wrong, but he's been told otherwise by a nut in a tin-foil hat, so he believes that instead. Congrats on joining him.

 

It doesn't contradict what I said at all. It says it was dismissed in May.

You repeating the same bullshit, doesn't magically make it true.

 

You said that she didn't drop it recently because of death threats and that it was dropped in May.
"A civil suit against Donald Trump alleging he raped a 13-year-old girl was dismissed in California in May 2016, refiled in New York in June 2016, and dropped again in November 2016."
"She was scheduled to appear at a press conference on 2 November 2016 but didn't show up, claiming that threats to her life kept her away. She reportedly dropped the lawsuit again on 4 November 2016 for the same reason."

Did you even read it?

 

Here's what I said. You've even quoted the same bit.

 

And it was refiled and then pulled, supposedly because of threats, which you said didn't happen.
You're quoting something that's openly contradicting what you're saying and you still can't see it. Bizarre.

 

Where did I say the alleged threats didn't happen? Although if you're being even handed, you shouldn't be using them, as there's no proof.

It doesn't contradict what I'm saying at all. It was a quote that you yourself also used.

 

So again, I will repeat she wasn't cleared. The balance of probability meant it was unlikely that she would be convicted. Even Clinton agreed that having emails on a server that wasn't supported by the US government was wrong.
In your quest to always be right you are arguing that 2+2=4, but 1+3 doesn't.

 

I didn't say that any threats happened. I used the words allegedly and supposedly, indicating accusations and claims.
I have no idea whether there was any substance to the case or any threats to drop it, nor have I indicated otherwise.
I didn't say that you'd said that they hadn't happened, but you'd indicated that the events of November didn't.
The case was refiled and then dropped.

 

She was cleared. They found no evidence of crimes that would lead to a conviction.
You're arguing that 0 is really 1.

What bizarre notion of cleared is being used here?
That they found evidence and should have locked her up, but couldn't be arsed?

 

I indicated no such thing.

You're just wriggling again.

 

You are now arguing with yourself. In an earlier post you claimed that Comey said potential violations might have been made. However, I have said based on probability, which is generally how these things work (including our own CPS) a conviction was unlikely. Therefore she wasn't "cleared", there was just not enough evidence for a successful prosecution. Do you not see the difference?

 

She was cleared of any criminal offences.

 

You always seem to have those disagreeing with you on a hook. You're either a skilled debater or deluded.

 

Of 112 protestors arrested in Oregon, 25 voted there.

http://www.kgw.com/news/local/more-than-half-of-arrested-anti-trump-protesters-didnt-vote/351964445

 

You often have **** all meaningful to say.

Why not point out your mate's spouting bollocks instead of just tediously nibbling at a username?

 

We can carry this on all night, she wasn't cleared there was insufficient evidence. There is a whole world of difference in law.