Reply With Quote
I meant today (short-term) - not long term. His very small chance for nomination is gone.
the biggest looser is the american people
little people have to obey law big people do not especially if they are a women who has never been able to run for president of the usa
I meant today (short-term) - not long term. His very small chance for nomination is gone.
And why didn't he take questions? Doesn't he usually?
He doesn't do pressers either. This should have gone straight to the DOJ but since this was a loss they went with the press consference.
She was grossly negligent which can still be prosecuted even if the intent wasn't there.
It's too late. The country chose this and now watch it to continue to burn.
Trump should just run this as an ad:
I agree with this. Trump will get alot of ammunition from this. It plays into his "corrupt Hillary" soundbite.
You cant prosecute stupid.
If we did, then half the country would be locked up. You could sense and hear how badly Comey wanted her but just couldn't. Under the law, she was found not to have done anything criminal.
Yes you can prosecute stupid. Happens all the time whether its manslaughter cases, DUIs, etc. And when it comes to classified stuff, being stupid can be prosecuted.
I know you support your candidate, but you don't have to be biased 100% of the times which is so annoying about die-hard supporters like you or Trumpbots who blindly support his re ed stuff.
That's not what happened at all.
The law was ignored, Comey said it himself.
And the FBI goes after people for the same thing Clinton did all the time.
https://m.fbi.gov/#https://www.fbi.g...fied-materials
Yep. "this is not to suggest that in similar cir stances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions."
He spent most of the time laying a case against her and did a 180 at the end. He claims that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case - maybe he knows that no prosecutor would win a case against Hillary. Can you imagine just the selection of the jury?
This has nothing to do with me liking her or not. I leave it to the profesionals to do their jobs. Its not my job to judge these cases.
Looks like they probed her and worked on this case for a year and a half and couldn't find evidence to put forth charges. I disagree on prosecuting stupdity.
There is a penalty for that but to say it's worth jail time is going a little too far.
Had she been secretary of state she would have been diciplined, had access revoked or worst, be fired from her post.
It is what happened to Petraus and that guy TheSanityAnnex has a link to.
The more I think about it this was actually a genius move by Comey knowing Obama and Lynch would never charge her.
Yes giving everyone stuff to pile on the crooked Hillary
No stopping the Clintrain now, nerds. Start bowing down
yep.
That is the only thing that makes sense.
He knew if he just presented the report to the Justice Department they would just bury it and the real facts would never come out.
Dude is toast when Hillary becomes President. The Clinton's always get even.
Legally she's in the clear, but Comey damaged her politically.
She's still going to trash Trash.
Comey is only 55 - too young to retire. BTW, he's really tall - 6 ft 8" - maybe he can come play for the Spurs :-)
Repugs' witch hunting of Hillary have produced the usual nothing, just like their 60 repeals of Obamacare.
While Repugs' are stuck with tar-baby Trash, and probably don't have the balls to dump Trash at the convention.
You are misusing the term "strawman".
(helpfully, because knowing makes us better critical thinkers):
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
It is not a strawman because I have not distorted anyone's position.
My question is entirely relevant, because it outlines the legal tests required, I am assuming, to meet the definition of gross negligence.
Since this is the law, definitions matter, as they should in any good discussion as well.
Again, since this is the law, evidence matters. You have not, I would assume, seen the exact evidence the FBI collected. I know that, which is why I asked you, so that you might want to consider the implications of assuming things without sufficient evidence to support assumptions.
In this case, your question "is Clinton being treated different when it comes to prosecution" is relevant.
Is she? How have other similar cases been considered? What is the standard? You tell me.
It seems to me you have bought the narrative of her political enemies, who have every motivation to lie and spin, without applying appropriate skepticism to it, because, in all liklihood, you already dislike her, and your confirmation bias has led you to accept something as true without properly considering it on its own merits.
Leaving me to close, by restating my question:
What is the actual evidence, and provide me with some past examples of similar cases, so that I can evaluate the claims she is being treated differently.
If it is the only thing that makes sense, how have you excluded the fact that he might have appropriately reached his conclusions, without external considerations?
Because it is not the FBI's job to determine if the case should be prosecuted. It is their job to present the evidence and let the Justice Department decide whether to pursue prosecution.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
