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

[ducks]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/hillary-c...185549138.html

[Spurtacular]

Maybe not; after all, Bolling is sending out 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 do ented. 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 do ented. 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 bull 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 uncons utional 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 bull 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 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 bull 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 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 .

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?