Hillary Clinton's Email Scandal Deserves a Special Prosecutor of Its Own, Former FBI

[ducks]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/hillary-clinton-apos-email-scandal-185549138.html

[Spurtacular]

Maybe not; after all, Bolling is sending out dick pics.

[ducks]

Bill taught him

[Pavlov]

Why not just a regular prosecutor if one is needed?

[spurraider21]

Ding tbh

[Spurtacular]

Why not just a regular prosecutor if one is needed?

If? Are you doubting that one is needed?

[Pavlov]

If? Are you doubting that one is needed?
Yes, frankly. Sessions can start an investigation any second he feels like it. Unless he feels the need to recuse himself again.

[DMC]

Sessions made a smart move, just like I said. Still has his job.

[Spurtacular]

Yes, frankly. Sessions can start an investigation any second he feels like it. Unless he feels the need to recuse himself again.

So, you have serious doubts about Hillary's lawlessness?

[Spurtacular]

Sessions made a smart move, just like I said. Still has his job.

Well, whatever you said, it wasn't in this thread.

[Pavlov]

So, you have serious doubts about Hillary's lawlessness?I'm not the one choosing not to charge or investigate her. Take it up with sessions and trump. So yeah, if her conviction is a slam dunk, get on with it

[Spurtacular]

I'm not the one choosing not to charge or investigate her. Take it up with sessions and trump. So yeah, if her conviction is a slam dunk, get on with it

So, your statement about "if needed" is not a denial of her lawlessness?

[Pavlov]

So, your statement about "if needed" is not a denial of her lawlessness?Proof of her lawlessness would be an investigation, trial and conviction. Are you demanding the investigation?

[Spurtacular]

Proof of her lawlessness would be an investigation, trial and conviction. Are you demanding the investigation?

I think her corruption and lawlessness is well documented. Are you actually trying to make a case that it somehow won't have existed if she she is not convicted?

[Pavlov]

I think her corruption and lawlessness is well documented. Are you actually trying to make a case that it somehow won't have existed if she she is not convicted?

I can make a case a lot of it is bullshit if she isn't even being investigated by the person who promised he would. Also, it's not a huge deal to me if she is convicted of something. Go ahead and try her if you got the goods. Is that happening now?

[DMC]

Well, whatever you said, it wasn't in this thread.


In each of the arguments you've cited, you don't even understand the argument. You're so far out in left field jousting the strawmen you've built that you've lost your way.

1. CHL used for open carry is unconstitutional but then so are many gun laws. I don't need to win a case against the feds for that to be true.
2. Pharmaceutical industry profits are what drives research and development. No profit, no R&D and eventually no company. Your argument is that it's not an effective motive since they evergreen (for profit) instead of developing new drugs. I didn't say it was more effective than evergreening existing products, so you're just fighting another strawman here. You need to officially stake out the position then that evergreening is more profitable than new development, and I'll likely agree. It's not an argument I have disagreed with, but you're going down that road.
3. Sessions' recused himself against Trump's will. He was pretty quick to do so. Trump isn't your run of the mill POTUS. He could very easily fire Sessions for being part of an investigation into the Russia thing. Since Sessions recused, he's free and clear of any noise surrounding it unless he's directly implicated (recusing doesn't mean he's immune from prosecution).

Try to keep up.

So do you have any other misconceptions of arguments you think you've won? I'd be happy to relieve you of them.

I said it.

[DMC]

I can make a case a lot of it is bullshit if she isn't even being investigated by the person who promised he would. Also, it's not a huge deal to me if she is convicted of something. Go ahead and try her if you got the goods. Is that happening now?

You have zero idea whether any of it is true or false. All you know is that it's not being prosecuted. You also know that a poster here cannot try Hillary Clinton. You say you can make a case, so make it. You're going to use burden of proof and lean on "no conviction" as a circular reasoning "benefit of the doubt".

[Spurtacular]

I said it.

Well, I didn't doubt you said it; I just didn't know what you said. I'm not a fan of Sessions. I hope Trump replaces him with someone who has a sac.

[Pavlov]

You have zero idea whether any of it is true or false. All you know is that it's not being prosecuted. You also know that a poster here cannot try Hillary Clinton. You say you can make a case, so make it. You're going to use burden of proof and lean on "no conviction" as a circular reasoning "benefit of the doubt".I actually don't give a shit if she is tried and convicted. That's what everyone misses. If they have the goods on her they should try her. If they think she needs to be investigated again, go ahead. They are in charge of it all.

[Spurtacular]

I can make a case a lot of it is bullshit if she isn't even being investigated by the person who promised he would. Also, it's not a huge deal to me if she is convicted of something. Go ahead and try her if you got the goods. Is that happening now?

It may or may not be a big deal to you if she's convicted. But you clearly have a rooting interest in her.

[Spurtacular]

I actually don't give a shit if she is tried and convicted. That's what everyone misses. If they have the goods on her they should try her. If they think she needs to be investigated again, go ahead. They are in charge of it all.

We're not missing anything. We're reading in between the lines. Anyone keeping up knows that Hillary has broken the law. Your willingness to cast aspersions for her says what needs to be said for a Hillary fanboy .

[Pavlov]

It may or may not be a big deal to you if she's convicted. But you clearly have a rooting interest in her.
Nope. Sorry. I know you want it to be that way. I meant what I said. If they need to investigate her more, they should get to it. What is stopping them?

[Pavlov]

We're not missing anything. We're reading in between the lines. Anyone keeping up knows that Hillary has broken the law. Your willingness to cast aspersions for her says what needs to be said for a Hillary fanboy .:lol you're trying big words. Nope. They should investigate her if they feel they should. Period

[Spurtacular]

Nope. Sorry. I know you want it to be that way. I meant what I said. If they need to investigate her more, they should get to it. What is stopping them?

I don't want it to be that way; though, I had pretty much figured. I get that even a cuck like you is not too excited about sperm shield for Hillary. I can see why you're trying to be coy about it.

[Pavlov]

I don't want it to be that way; though, I had pretty much figured. I get that even a cuck like you is not too excited about sperm shield for Hillary. I can see why you're trying to be coy about it.
What part of what I said did you not understand?

[Spurtacular]

What part of what I said did you not understand?

None of it. A search of your Hillary posting history shows that you have consistently deflected for Hillary. You root for her, bro.

[Pavlov]

None of it. A search of your Hillary posting history shows that you have consistently deflected for Hillary. You root for her, bro.I simply haven't seen her investimated any further. Why isn't Trump investigating like he promised?

[Spurtacular]

I simply haven't seen her investimated any further. Why isn't Trump investigating like he promised?

This is a good question. I have some preliminary theories, but I don't presume to know. I suspected from the outset that this would be the case. But that's not the issue. The issue is you pretending that Hillary hasn't broken the law.

[Pavlov]

This is a good question. I have some preliminary theories, but I don't presume to know. I suspected from the outset that this would be the case. But that's not the issue. The issue is you pretending that Hillary hasn't broken the law.:lol "I have some theories."

Spoken like a truther.

[Spurtacular]

:lol "I have some theories."

Spoken like a truther.

What I'm not suppose to have ideas? Sorry, that's not how it works for critical thinkers, politicuck.

[Spurtacular]

Pavlov

Also, the issue still is you pretending that Hillary has not broken the law; doesn't get more cuck worthy than that, honestly.

[Pavlov]

What I'm not suppose to have ideas? Sorry, that's not how it works for critical thinkers, politicuck.
You have no ideas. You're a bot.

[Pavlov]

Pavlov

Also, the issue still is you pretending that Hillary has not broken the law; doesn't get more cuck worthy than that, honestly.I am all for investigating her further if that is what the president of the United States decrees. Let's go.

[Spurtacular]

You have no ideas. You're a bot.

A lemming calling me a bot doesn't move the needle, tbh.

[Spurtacular]

I am all for investigating her further if that is what the president of the United States decrees. Let's go.

Okay. Now answer whether you think she has broken the law or not?

[Pavlov]

Okay. Now answer whether you think she has broken the law or not?Don't know honestly. She did plenty of stupid shit that wasabsolutely her fault, but her not even being investigated at this point gIves me pause. What crimes do you think she committed and what sentence would you condemn her to?

[Spurtacular]

Don't know honestly. She did plenty of stupid shit that wasabsolutely her fault, but her not even being investigated at this point gIves me pause. What crimes do you think she committed and what sentence would you condemn her to?

And that's why you're a total cuck. Of course she was completely negligent in her handling of classified intel. And that's frankly just the tip of the iceberg.

[Pavlov]

And that's why you're a total cuck. Of course she was completely negligent in her handling of classified intel. And that's frankly just the tip of the iceberg.Ok, what crimes are you saying she committed and what sentence should she serve. Also, what isn't Trump trying her right now?

[Spurtacular]

Ok, what crimes are you saying she committed and what sentence should she serve. Also, what isn't Trump trying her right now?

I'm saying she negligently handled classified intel. When you can stop cucking and admit that, we can progress with the convo. For the time being, you're a joke.

[hater]

If Trump had done what shitlery did with emails he would be in Guantanamo tbqh

[Pavlov]

I'm saying she negligently handled classified intel. When you can stop cucking and admit that, we can progress with the convo. For the time being, you're a joke.
Why isn't Trump investigating right now like he promised? What are your theories?

[DMC]

I actually don't give a shit if she is tried and convicted. That's what everyone misses. If they have the goods on her they should try her. If they think she needs to be investigated again, go ahead. They are in charge of it all.

"They"

They aren't here. If she's not tried and convicted it has much less to do with the veracity of the charge and much more to do with the influence of her family.

But since you've taken that tact - throw Trump out of office. Impeach him. Convict him. Vote him out.

You guys missed opportunities to do anything about it except talk, but let me guess... now you get it that no one here has that power.

[spurraider21]

"They"

They aren't here. If she's not tried and convicted it has much less to do with the veracity of the charge and much more to do with the influence of her family.

But since you've taken that tact - throw Trump out of office. Impeach him. Convict him. Vote him out.

You guys missed opportunities to do anything about it except talk, but let me guess... now you get it that no one here has that power.
His campaign IS being investigated

[Spurminator]

Yeah that's a confusing point to try to make in a thread whose premise is basically "If Trump is going to be investigated, why not Clinton too?"

Literally, the first sentence in the article is:


As the investigation into Donald Trump's ties to Russia ramps up—led by special counsel Robert Mueller, former head of the FBI—at least one former FBI agent thinks the president's former opponent, Hillary Clinton, deserves to have an investigation and special prosecutor of her own.

[Pavlov]

"They"

They aren't here. If she's not tried and convicted it has much less to do with the veracity of the charge and much more to do with the influence of her family.

But since you've taken that tact - throw Trump out of office. Impeach him. Convict him. Vote him out.

You guys missed opportunities to do anything about it except talk, but let me guess... now you get it that no one here has that power.You wanted me to use the word "we"? I'm not getting your point. If you think Trump isn't investigating Clinton now because of the influence of "her family" -- what influence does that family have over Trump right now?

[DMC]

You wanted me to use the word "we"? I'm not getting your point. If you think Trump isn't investigating Clinton now because of the influence of "her family" -- what influence does that family have over Trump right now?

You used a nebulous term like "they" after you basically challenged a forum poster to do something about it.

The wealthy and the powerful stick together.

https://static.politico.com/dims4/default/9d7b2cf/2147483647/resize/1160x/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2Fc4%2F03%2F e30b00134b70b9cca69a3c9cf90a%2F151229-donald-trump-bill-clinton-gty-1160.jpg

Believing otherwise is akin to thinking the WWE is real, that one guy turned on his partner because of something said at the podium.

:lol no

[Pavlov]

You used a nebulous term like "they" after you basically challenged a forum poster to do something about it.

The wealthy and the powerful stick together.

https://static.politico.com/dims4/default/9d7b2cf/2147483647/resize/1160x/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2Fc4%2F03%2F e30b00134b70b9cca69a3c9cf90a%2F151229-donald-trump-bill-clinton-gty-1160.jpg

Believing otherwise is akin to thinking the WWE is real, that one guy turned on his partner because of something said at the podium.

:lol no:lol "basically."

Great, so you're saying Trump is corrupt. OK.

[ducks]

If Trump had done what shitlery did with emails he would be in Guantanamo tbqh

[Spurtacular]

Why isn't Trump investigating right now like he promised? What are your theories?

Q: Why aren't you admitting that Hillary negligently handled classified intel?

A: Sperm shielding.

[DMC]

:lol "basically."

Great, so you're saying Trump is corrupt. OK.
Yes you pedantic twit, basically. Get your act together.

They are all corrupt. You cannot win the office without being corrupt.

[Pavlov]

Q: Why aren't you admitting that Hillary negligently handled classified intel?

A: Sperm shielding.Criminally? There would have to be a trial. Why isn't there a trial?


Yes you pedantic twit, basically. Get your act together. :lol


They are all corrupt. You cannot win the office without being corrupt.OK. As long as you're admitting Trump is corrupt.

[DMC]

Criminally? There would have to be a trial. Why isn't there a trial?

:lol

OK. As long as you're admitting Trump is corrupt.
Admitting? I said so when he first decided to run, and again when he made it to November and again when he won. He's just not good at covering his ass.

[Spurtacular]

Criminally? There would have to be a trial. Why isn't there a trial?



You're smart enough to know that not all crimes get prosecuted; you're sperm shielding further.

[Pavlov]

You're smart enough to know that not all crimes get prosecuted; you're sperm shielding further.:lol You asked. I answered.

What crime do you say she committed and how long do you think she should serve in prison?

[Spurtacular]

:lol You asked. I answered.

What crime do you say she committed and how long do you think she should serve in prison?

You did answer....albeit incompetently.

What crime do you say she committed regardless of whether you think she should be in prison?

[Pavlov]

You did answer....albeit incompetently.

What crime do you say she committed regardless of whether you think she should be in prison?:lol what a stupid question. I said I don't know if her negligence is criminal. That's what a trial would determine if prosecutors think it is criminal.

What crime do you say she committed and how long do you think she should be in prison?

[Spurtacular]

:lol what a stupid question. I said I don't know if her negligence is criminal. That's what a trial would determine if prosecutors think it is criminal.

What crime do you say she committed and how long do you think she should be in prison?

:lmao

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

:lmao BIGGEST CUCK ON ST!

[Pavlov]

:lmao

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

:lmao BIGGEST CUCK ON ST!What is the legal definition for gross negligence?

[Spurtacular]

What is the legal definition for gross negligence?

I'd say sending out classified info on an unauthorized server for all of America's enemies to easily attain qualifies, bro.

[Pavlov]

I'd say sending out classified info on an unauthorized server for all of America's enemies to easily attain qualifies, bro.You didn't answer the question.

What is the legal definition of gross negligence?

[Spurtacular]

You didn't answer the question.

What is the legal definition of gross negligence?

I'm not going to get lost in the weeds just because you want to sperm shield for Hillary. Go buy your I'm with her pins on heavy discount since you want to sperm shield for her.

[Pavlov]

I'm notOK.

[Chris]

http://media0.giphy.com/media/AfNs23IocG2gE/giphy.gif

[Spurtacular]

OK.

You tell me if Hillary committed gross negligence or not. I've already assessed this to be the case. Put up or shut up, cuck.

[boutons_deux]

you rightwingnug assholes STILL obsessed with Hillary, Obama, Soros, but have NO PROBLEM, OBJECTIONS to Trash's criminal enterprise, nor the entire oligarchy/VRWC fucking NETWORK of right wing hate media, and total DISinformation, propaganda, alternate facts, denials of irrefutable science.

[ducks]

there is no proof of trump criminal enterprise?
and if he got a loan from Russia is it illegal?
if it was he would have been caught a loan time ago. the irs has audited him every year they know he did not break the law

[Pavlov]

You tell me if Hillary committed gross negligence or not. I've already assessed this to be the case. Put up or shut up, cuck.
You can't make a case for gross negligence because you can't even legally define gross negligence.

[Spurtacular]

You can't make a case for gross negligence because you can't even legally define gross negligence.

You won't assess whether Hillary acted with gross negligence after all these months (years). You're a sperm shield.

[Pavlov]

You won't assess whether Hillary acted with gross negligence after all these months (years). You're a sperm shield.From what I know about gross negligence it would have to be proved in a trial, and it would probably be tougher than just declaring someone guilty on a message board without any knowledge of gross negligence whatsoever. What I'm saying is this: You're pretty ignorant, counselor.

[ducks]

You can't make a case for gross negligence because you can't even legally define gross negligence.



Gross negligence



Gross negligence is a legal concept which means serious carelessness. Negligence is the opposite of diligence, or being careful. The standard of ordinary negligence is what conduct deviates from the proverbial "reasonable person."

[ducks]

Gross Negligence

An indifference to, and a blatant violation of, a legal duty with respect to the rights of others.

Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care. Ordinary negligence and gross negligence differ in degree of inattention, while both differ from willful and wanton conduct, which is conduct that is reasonably considered to cause injury. This distinction is important, since contributory negligence—a lack of care by the plaintiff that combines with the defendant's conduct to cause the plaintiff's injury and completely bar his or her action—is not a defense to willful and wanton conduct but is a defense to gross negligence. In addition, a finding of willful and wanton misconduct usually supports a recovery of Punitive Damages, whereas gross negligence does not.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Gross+negligence

[Spurtacular]

From what I know about gross negligence it would have to be proved in a trial, and it would probably be tougher than just declaring someone guilty on a message board without any knowledge of gross negligence whatsoever. What I'm saying is this: You're pretty ignorant, counselor.

Everything pretty much has to be proved at trial when the rubber meets the road. What I'm saying is that you're a sperm shield.

[Spurtacular]

Gross Negligence

An indifference to, and a blatant violation of, a legal duty with respect to the rights of others.

Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care. Ordinary negligence and gross negligence differ in degree of inattention, while both differ from willful and wanton conduct, which is conduct that is reasonably considered to cause injury. This distinction is important, since contributory negligence—a lack of care by the plaintiff that combines with the defendant's conduct to cause the plaintiff's injury and completely bar his or her action—is not a defense to willful and wanton conduct but is a defense to gross negligence. In addition, a finding of willful and wanton misconduct usually supports a recovery of Punitive Damages, whereas gross negligence does not.

http://legal-dictionary (http://<strong>legal-dictionary</strong>).thefreedictionary.com/Gross+negligence

We'll see if sperm shield bothers to form an opinion against his overlord now.

[Pavlov]

Everything pretty much has to be proved at trialSo we agree.

:lol again

[Spurtacular]

So we agree.

:lol again

The subtext is/was that you're saying axiomatic statements to filibuster and ultimately sperm shield.

Go ahead and tell us whether Miss Clinton acted with gross negligence and broke the law if you want to say anything meaningful.

[Pavlov]

The subtext is/was that you're saying axiomatic statements to filibuster and ultimately sperm shield.

Go ahead and tell us whether Miss Clinton acted with gross negligence and broke the law if you want to say anything meaningful.:lmao look like I triggered your thesaurus.

We agreed it would be determined in a trial. If you want to argue some other position, you're going to have to take that position first.

[Spurtacular]

:lmao look like I triggered your thesaurus.

We agreed it would be determined in a trial. If you want to argue some other position, you're going to have to take that position first.

We're not debating the purpose of trials, sperm shield.

[Pavlov]

We're not debating the purpose of trials, sperm shield.I don't know what you're trying to debate at this point. If you want to set up a mock trial, go to law school, counselor.

[Blake]

We're not debating the purpose of trials, sperm shield.


Fuck man. Do you even understand the basic concept of guilt in the US?

I don't think you do. You're just a conspiracy nut worthy of lols

[Spurtacular]

Chump losing the argument; had to switch screen names to run out of the corner :lmao

[Spurtacular]

I don't know what you're trying to debate at this point. If you want to set up a mock trial, go to law school, counselor.

Answer a simple question, bro. Did Hillary Clinton act with gross negligence in your legal opinion. We don't have to debate the purpose of trials for you to do that.

[Pavlov]

Answer a simple question, bro. Did Hillary Clinton act with gross negligence in your legal opinion. We don't have to debate the purpose of trials for you to do that.I don't have a legal opinion, counselor. Everything I've read outside of this board leads me to believe it would be difficult to prove in court. I'm content with that.

[Blake]

Chump losing the argument; had to switch screen names to run out of the corner :lmao

You think I'm ChumpDumper?

Explain your theory. Be specific.

[Reck]

You mean Spurtacular still doesn't know who Chump is under his new name? :lol

[Pavlov]

You mean Spurtacular still doesn't know who Chump is under his new name? :lolI'm also you.

[Blake]

I'm also you.

No I'm not

[Pavlov]

No I'm notYes we are.

[Blake]

Yes we are.

Ah hell, may as well let the forum in on the joke.

We're Spurtacular too.

Gotcha.

[Pavlov]

Ah hell, may as well let the forum in on the joke.

We're Spurtacular too.

Gotcha.Thank Mormon that's over. That was exhausting.

[djohn2oo8]

:lmao lololololol

[Chris]

You mean Spurtacular still doesn't know who Chump is under his new name? :lol

Boy, you're lost. :lol

[Chris]

tR-r4xpYgAU

[Pavlov]

:lol Dickmo's entire post-whore career has been a storm surge of bitterness.

[Reck]

Boy, you're lost. :lol

Yeah, I'm the one that's lost, farm boy... :lol

[djohn2oo8]

Imaginary investigations must be better than real ones...

[Slutter McGee]

you rightwingnug assholes STILL obsessed with Hillary, Obama, Soros, but have NO PROBLEM, OBJECTIONS to Trash's criminal enterprise, nor the entire oligarchy/VRWC fucking NETWORK of right wing hate media, and total DISinformation, propaganda, alternate facts, denials of irrefutable science. you are a fucking idiot. Possibly the dumbest fuck to ever walk the planet. Even Blake is smarter than you.

[Chris]

Even Blake is smarter than you.

Lets not get carried away. :lol

[Chucho]

Lets not get carried away. :lol

Blake IS smarter tho.

[Chucho]

But yes...Boots is very, very fucking retarded. Like, lowest of the low here. And buddy, that's pretty fuckin low.

[boutons_deux]

you are a fucking idiot. Possibly the dumbest fuck to ever walk the planet. Even Blake is smarter than you.

my dear little bleeding slut butt, you pissed off? you're losing control, stay on your knees and take my bitch slapping like a little bitch

[Axl Rose]

my dear little bleeding slut butt, you pissed off? you're losing control, stay on your knees and take my bitch slapping like a little bitch
Is that any way for an old ass dude to be talking? Aren't you like 69 years old and you're talking about 69'ing men on messageboards?