The EU debate - Part III

If there were evidence that she'd broken the law, then she'd be getting charged.
You just can't read, apparently. I've already pointed out that the last sentence isn't talking about criminal charges.
Comey was commenting on something in a way that he shouldn't and he knew it.
He's clearly biased, just not in the way that you bizarrely believe him to be.

“This will be an unusual statement, in at least a couple ways.”
“First, I am going to include more detail about our process than I ordinarily would, because I think the American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest."
"Second, I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government."
"They do not know what I am about to say.”

Now when you inevitably reply, please try not to repeat the same bullshit, eh?
It's very, very boring having to point out where you're clearly, irrefutably wrong over and over and over.

 

You've offered nothing to back up your claim she was cleared. I said they found evidence of wrong doing but decided on balance not to prosecute, and posted the FBI report that says exactly that.

He explains why she isn't getting charged.

What he clearly doesn't say is that there was NO evidence of the law being broken. He quite clearly says the opposite.

You claimed they cleared her. They quite clearly didn't, they simply decided on balance, not to take it further, on this occasion.

 

Wrongdoing ≠ criminal activity.
The man's explaining that she's not being charged with any criminal offences.
You think that he's doing that while saying that she's clearly guilty.
Do you realise quite how stupid that is?

 

Did I say she was guilty, or are you shifting again? You said they cleared her. You've yet to show they did.

Had he 'cleared' her, there'd be a NO as the third word in this bit of the FBI statement.

"there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information,

There are plenty of cases of laws being broken that don't lead to prosecution and a formal guilty verdict. That's not them being 'cleared'. The fact they continued the investigation when more emails came to light demonstrates that. Had she been cleared, it would have been a completely new investigation.

 

Why would it have been a separate investigation? It was the same case. That's ludicrous.
You have heard of cases being reopened, haven't you?

You're asking for evidence of her being cleared, while posting the press conference clearing her.
You really are special, aren't you?

 

The FBI comments are about the first investigation. Had they cleared her as you claim. It would have been a new investigation rather than a continuation.

You've yet to show they cleared her.

I've posted several times the comment saying that there IS evidence of the law being broken. Can you find a comment in that saying there is NO evidence of a law being broken?

 

You haven't done any such thing. Potential violations does not mean violations.
She's been cleared and you've posted the evidence yourself. You've been told otherwise though, so you don't believe it.

"In looking back into investigations into the mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of 1. clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information or 2. vast quantities of information exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct or 3. indications of disloyalty to the United States or 4. efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."

 

Sorry, you dont have the right pay grade to set an agenda, you are just read only

 

They cannot find a case, is not the same as being unable to find evidence.

You still haven't posted anything to support your claim she was cleared, only that there was a decision not to prosecute.

 

As long as you're reading you're following my agenda

And in your case reading is good. You might just learn something.

 

She hasn't been cleared, there's just nothing to prosecute?

 

Nope, I didn't say that either.

 

Positive noises from Trump about trade with the U.K. and has invited May to visit him as soon as possible. He's said the UK is a very, very special place for him and his country and he wants to strengthen trade and the special relationship between the two countries.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37941737

He has British heritage and a silver lining could be the way we are treated post brexit to how we might have been otherwise. No back of the queue for us under Trump.

 

Please refrain from posting on this thread its snowflake free week

Thank you for your co-operation

 

That will upset the left and remaoners.

 

This says everything about how he sees the special relationship

 

I'll have you a bet that there's no UK / US deal signed before Trump leaves office

 

My (optimistic) prediction:

The U.K. and EU do a deal which basically keeps most things the same with some small changes, with the U.K. keeping full access to the single market, but the UK government gains greater autonomy and the ability to do trade deals around the world. Uncertainty subsides and the short term negative effects on the economy are reversed.

The U.K. does a deal with the US whilst the EU fails to get TTIP over the line. Seeing the opportunities this opens up, greater investment is made into the UK economy.

The U.K. gets trade deals in place with some of its commonwealth partners within a short period of time making us look an attractive economic prospect by nations around the world.

The U.K. begins negotiations with other nations around the world on deals that may take longer to iron out the details including India, other emerging markets, possibly China.

The U.K. takes up its place as a beacon and shining example for global trade.

#brexitutopia

 

PNP showing almost superhuman levels of tolerance arguing with Mr Slippery there tonight.

 

The referendum to leave the EU was won by leavers based on the rules
Trump will become president based on the rules
You pathetically say people were duped
That's because your worthless ideals were shown to be nonsense