The EU debate - Part III

[DMD]

Were we talking about crimes that weren't crimes? merely innuendo and false accusation, that lead to no court case or conviction....

As I said, let's see how the President elect gets on.....

No we're not.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

Apart from the evidence they found and commented on.

Except they didn't. You merely think that they did, despite them saying otherwise.
I've pointed out why you're wrong about this, but you're sticking with it anyway.

If they found evidence of her committing crimes, then why wasn't she charged?
You're avoiding this question, as usual.

 

[Tobes]

Them being the poorer sections, rather than coloured.

You must log in or register to see media

Yeah it would be wrong to suggest that whites aren't caught in the same trap, however proportionally blacks are 3x more likely to be caught in it.

Let's not kid ourselves, America still has a massive race issue, it's far from fully developed in that regard, and at times - it shows.

 

[pieguts]

The FBI investigated Clinton repeatedly over these emails and didn't find evidence of any crimes.
You're suggesting that they did, but don't want to do their actual jobs, for no apparent reason.
Comey, in particular, ****ed with her campaign, but is apparently on her side, in your opinion.
How does this make any sense?

We're not going to do this again are we?
The sad thing is you are both kind of right. She was not cleared because she wasn't prosecuted, she wasn't prosecuted because they decided there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute.

 

[Tobes]

No we're not.

I think we are, only you're ploughing your own furrow

Charged and convicted of......what exactly???

In your own time.

 

[DMD]

Except they didn't. You merely think that they did, despite them saying otherwise.
I've pointed out why you're wrong about this, but you're sticking with it anyway.

If they found evidence of her committing crimes, then why wasn't she charged?
You're avoiding this question, as usual.

I've not avoided it, I've responded several times and quoted the FBI statement that explains it. I linked it again in a recent reply. They say other people behaving the same way would be liable to face action, but in balance, it wasn't deemed appropriate on this occasion.

 

[DMD]

I think we are, only you're ploughing your own furrow

Charged and convicted of......what exactly???

In your own time.

What are you babbling about now? You've jumped in on some other tangent, and expect people to guess what you're on about.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

I've not avoided it, I've responded several times and quoted the FBI statement that explains it. I linked it again in a recent reply. They say other people behaving the same way would be liable to face action, but in balance, it wasn't deemed appropriate on this occasion.

That's not what it said. I pointed this out to you already.
Comey indicated that non-judicial action would be appropriate, in his opinion, but that he wasn't in a position to do it.

 

[DMD]

We're not going to do this again are we?
The sad thing is you are both kind of right. She was not cleared because she wasn't prosecuted, she wasn't prosecuted because they decided there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute.

This ^^^^^^. It's pretty much what I'm saying.

 

[DMD]

That's not what it said. I pointed this out to you already.
Comey indicated that non-judicial action would be appropriate, in his opinion, but that he wasn't in a position to do it.

So she wasn't cleared. Part of the consideration was if it was a federal offence, but that only applies if they're in office. That's hardly 'cleared'.

 

[pieguts]

I've not avoided it, I've responded several times and quoted the FBI statement that explains it. I linked it again in a recent reply. They say other people behaving the same way would be liable to face action, but in balance, it wasn't deemed appropriate on this occasion.

To be fair Hull, the FBI statement was a classic politician type response. It pretty much covered all bases by saying nothing, but wasted lots of words saying it.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

So she wasn't cleared. Part of the consideration was if it was a federal offence, but that only applies if they're in office. That's hardly 'cleared'.

She was cleared of any criminal activity with regard to the emails.
You're now attempting to move the goalposts.

Comey was offering his opinion on something that he shouldn't have.
He was heavily criticised for it and decided to follow up with his later bullshit move.
It's been suggested that this was a criminal offence, rather ironically.

 

[Tobes]

What are you babbling about now? You've jumped in on some other tangent, and expect people to guess what you're on about.

It was hardly cryptic.

What's she been charged and convicted of?

The answer is rhetorical, because we both know it's **** all.

So, the intimations of guilt are without foundation.

Your quoted comment by the FBI about the irresponsible use of home e-mail for passing on potentially classified information is not her being found guilty of anything.

As I said, lets see how shredded wheat bonce gets on with his rape and fraud cases

 

[remembercolinlee]

It is in this country. Unless of course you kept your beliefs to yourself, but then you would be irrelevant to the issue.
But speaking, or writing down, white supremacy rhetoric is illegal in the UK and you would be arrested for "Inciting racial hatred".
In the US it's not, because they have the whole 1st amendment thing.

I think you are mistaken. You can legally be a white supremacist in Britain and spread your beliefs. The BNP have done it for a couple of decades as did those before them with similar beliefs.
What you can not legally do is verbally of physically abuse people or discriminate against people because of their race.

 

[DMD]

To be fair Hull, the FBI statement was a classic politician type response. It pretty much covered all bases by saying nothing, but wasted lots of words saying it.

With statements like that, sometimes it's the omissions that can be revealing. For example, they don't put "no" before "evidence"

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

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

 

[DMD]

It was hardly cryptic.

What's she been charged and convicted of?

The answer is rhetorical, because we both know it's **** all.

So, the intimations of guilt are without foundation.

Your quoted comment by the FBI about the irresponsible use of home e-mail for passing on potentially classified information is not her being found guilty of anything.

As I said, lets see how shredded wheat bonce gets on with his rape and fraud cases

She wasn't charged or convicted of anything. Who said she was? Even t'other fella's not babbling on about that.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

It was hardly cryptic.

What's she been charged and convicted of?

The answer is rhetorical, because we both know it's **** all.

So, the intimations of guilt are without foundation.

Your quoted comment by the FBI about the irresponsible use of home e-mail for passing on potentially classified information is not her being found guilty of anything.

As I said, lets see how shredded wheat bonce gets on with his rape and fraud cases

His rape of a minor case has been dropped, as the alleged victim received a load of death threats, apparently.
He's only got about 75 upcoming cases against him now, I believe.

First up? Trump University fraud trials.

 

[DMD]

I think you are mistaken. You can legally be a white supremacist in Britain and spread your beliefs. The BNP have done it for a couple of decades as did those before them with similar beliefs.
What you can not legally do is verbally of physically abuse people or discriminate against people because of their race.

Although there has been a bit of lee-way of your a muslim radical preacher or protester doing it.

You must log in or register to see images

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

With statements like that, sometimes it's the omissions that can be revealing. For example, they don't put "no" before "evidence"

"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."

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

Nice quote mine. You didn't even finish the sentence.

"In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts."

 

[DMD]

His rape of a minor case has been dropped, as the alleged victim received a load of death threats, apparently.
He's only got about 75 upcoming cases against him now, I believe.

First up? Trump University fraud trials.

The claims were dismissed in May, not through any threats.

http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/


Trump being charged or not changes nothing about Clinton. That's just diversion.