Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-06-2016, 08:01 PM (This post was last modified: 22-06-2016 09:18 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(22-06-2016 07:56 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(22-06-2016 07:30 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  And yet, there are no signs that an indictment is coming for any of that is coming.
Honest question: What would you consider to be a sign? Something like Clinton's IT specialist pleading the fifth over a hundred times while being questioned on Wednesday? Consider

That's a sign of the IT specialist not being a stupid human. Nothing more. I'd do the same thing. Dafuq would you do. Kraut?

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
22-06-2016, 08:01 PM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(22-06-2016 07:53 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  Wasn't there some GOP guy who admitted he faked some of the email evidence after the FBI called him out. I think CNN broke the story.
You mean this "mostly false" story from 2013 that has nothing to do with the current e-mail server scandal? That one?

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2016, 08:02 PM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(22-06-2016 07:53 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  
(22-06-2016 07:30 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  And yet, there are no signs that an indictment is coming for any of that is coming.

Wasn't there some GOP guy who admitted he faked some of the email evidence after the FBI called him out. I think CNN broke the story.

That'd be an interesting read, got a link?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2016, 08:05 PM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(22-06-2016 07:56 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(22-06-2016 07:30 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  And yet, there are no signs that an indictment is coming for any of that is coming.
Honest question: What would you consider to be a sign? Something like Clinton's IT specialist pleading the fifth over a hundred times while being questioned on Wednesday? Consider

Ever taken advice from a lawyer? There's a difference between public perception (which you're exemplifying) and legal statements. Woe betide the fool who confuses the two.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
22-06-2016, 08:12 PM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(22-06-2016 07:56 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  No. The report accused her of it.
What exactly are you trying to argue here? That she didn't actually store top secret information on her private e-mail server or that doing so doesn't violate any laws or regulations?

(22-06-2016 08:05 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Ever taken advice from a lawyer? There's a difference between public perception (which you're exemplifying) and legal statements. Woe betide the fool who confuses the two.
Why would an innocent person ever plead the fifth amendment? If everything Clinton did was "above board" and "perfectly allowed", as she claims, you would expect him to be very forthcoming with testimony that can support those claims, wouldn't you?

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2016, 08:32 PM (This post was last modified: 22-06-2016 08:35 PM by Fireball.)
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(22-06-2016 08:12 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(22-06-2016 07:56 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  No. The report accused her of it.
What exactly are you trying to argue here? That she didn't actually store top secret information on her private e-mail server or that doing so doesn't violate any laws or regulations?

(22-06-2016 08:05 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Ever taken advice from a lawyer? There's a difference between public perception (which you're exemplifying) and legal statements. Woe betide the fool who confuses the two.
Why would an innocent person ever plead the fifth amendment? If everything Clinton did was "above board" and "perfectly allowed", as she claims, you would expect him to be very forthcoming with testimony that can support those claims, wouldn't you?

I'm pretty sure that I saw a video link posted here on this website about what the police can do with your statements. Go ahead and look for it, I'm not going to do it for you. Upshot- ONE comment that isn't true can be used to show that you weren't being truthful during questioning; people have gone to prison and been executed for things they have said which were used by zealous prosecutors. Unless you have been in trouble with the law in the US of A, the best thing you could do is not stir shit about the legal process here. And if you have, just go ahead and spill your guts, and then see what may happen.

Note that I am not defending Hilary in this reply. She has been accused, not convicted. If what I have seen floating around the internet is true, she belongs in jail. Nothing has been proved, no indictment has been made, no trial held, no judgment made. That's the law of the land here, and until due process has been observed, trial via internet is meaningless.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Fireball's post
22-06-2016, 08:34 PM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
I have no interest in defending Clinton, but you're making arguments that don't hold up.

First, the IG report is not "proof" of criminal wrong doing. It is possibly evidence to be used by a trier of fact but it doesn't meet the legal standard required to claim criminal guilt. That said, I thought it was pretty damming.

Second, her IT guy pleading the 5th can't be used to infer guilt upon Clinton. He has a right not to incriminate himself. He can't refuse to testify against her. So, again, from a legal perspective it's not relevant.

You're drawing conclusions and claiming they are facts. They are not facts, though.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like BnW's post
22-06-2016, 08:35 PM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(22-06-2016 08:12 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Why would an innocent person ever plead the fifth amendment? If everything Clinton did was "above board" and "perfectly allowed", as she claims, you would expect him to be very forthcoming with testimony that can support those claims, wouldn't you?

An innocent person could plead the fifth so that he doesn't provide evidence that can be used against him/her. Just because you are innocent doesn't mean you won't be indicted, prosecuted, and convicted. It is generally a good idea to plead the fifth even if you are innocent.

The problem I have with IT specialist is that he already has an immunity deal so he should not be allowed to plead the fifth. Something doesn't smell right.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Heywood Jahblome's post
22-06-2016, 08:41 PM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(22-06-2016 08:34 PM)BnW Wrote:  I have no interest in defending Clinton, but you're making arguments that don't hold up.

First, the IG report is not "proof" of criminal wrong doing. It is possibly evidence to be used by a trier of fact but it doesn't meet the legal standard required to claim criminal guilt. That said, I thought it was pretty damming.

Second, her IT guy pleading the 5th can't be used to infer guilt upon Clinton. He has a right not to incriminate himself. He can't refuse to testify against her. So, again, from a legal perspective it's not relevant.

You're drawing conclusions and claiming they are facts. They are not facts, though.
Whose claims are you disputing here? Certainly not mine because I never used the terms "proof", "criminal wrongdoing" or "criminal guilt" in this thread. I also never actually claimed that her IT specialist's refusal to testify is evidence of her guilt.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2016, 09:19 PM (This post was last modified: 22-06-2016 09:24 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(22-06-2016 07:36 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(22-06-2016 05:28 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  He doesn't need due process to convict her. He "knows" she's guilty, he just "knows". I'll care what he "knows" to be true when he's an American citizen and can actually vote in our elections. Until then he's just breaking wind.
Oh look, it's you again. The delusional little Clinton drone who refuses to acknowledge any of Hillary's wrongdoings in the face of clear evidence. I'll start caring about your ignorant opinion once you've grown enough of a spine to defend her record.

(22-06-2016 06:40 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  No. You sound like a lost cause. If you want to believe that lying sack of shit you will. There are plenty of those kind of assholes running around loose in the country.
I don't believe Trump, I believe the Inspector General's report and the countless other sources that attest to her guilt. Trump is only repeating criticisms that others have leveled against Clinton before him.

(22-06-2016 07:30 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You forgot to mention that in the same report, he found she did nothing her predecessors had not also done. So there's that little inconvenience.
You either didn't read the report or you're blatantly lying about it. None of her predecessors built a private e-mail server at home and stored top secret information on it.

That's not what they said, and it's not what I said. Clearly you have not read the report. You have no clue what you're talking about.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/03/07/...ate/209044
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/h...ezza-rice/

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: