Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-06-2016, 12:39 AM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(23-06-2016 12:15 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Am I wrong? You see signs of a coming indictment? I mean since you're a fascist living in Prague I am extremely interested in your opinion on US Politics. Nate Silver needs to start considering polls from Czech Republic.
I think the immunity deal would be one sign of it. Another would be Julian Assange recently coming out to say that Wikileaks is planning to release enough evidence to possibly prompt an indictment soon.

We are unlikely to find out about the details of the immunity deal anytime soon, by the way, because it just so happens that the IT guy's lawyer requested that it be kept a secret.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2016, 12:50 AM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(23-06-2016 12:39 AM)Vosur Wrote:  We are unlikely to find out about the details of the immunity deal anytime soon, by the way, because it just so happens that the IT guy's lawyer requested that it be kept a secret.

You think that's unusual? You really have no fucking clue how our judicial system works. That's the default position.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
23-06-2016, 12:50 AM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(23-06-2016 12:50 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  You think that's unusual? You really have no fucking clue how our judicial system works. That's the default position.
Help me out here: When and where did I say it's unusual? Consider

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2016, 01:05 AM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(23-06-2016 12:50 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(23-06-2016 12:50 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  You think that's unusual? You really have no fucking clue how our judicial system works. That's the default position.
Help me out here: When and where did I say it's unusual? Consider

When you made out like it was a big deal - when it's just normal everyday lawyering.

I mean... what if you were on trial for murder... AND YOU PLEAD NOT GUILTY??? Doesn't that indicate that in fact you MUST be guilty?

AFAICT, that's basically what you're doing here. The IT guy's lawyer's job is to protect his client's interests. Of course he's going to request X if he thinks it'll help. If the request is *granted* then the judge or whoever makes the decision thinks so too. And it still has zero to do with guilt or innocence of Hilary.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like morondog's post
23-06-2016, 01:22 AM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(23-06-2016 01:05 AM)morondog Wrote:  When you made out like it was a big deal - when it's just normal everyday lawyering.

I mean... what if you were on trial for murder... AND YOU PLEAD NOT GUILTY??? Doesn't that indicate that in fact you MUST be guilty?

AFAICT, that's basically what you're doing here. The IT guy's lawyer's job is to protect his client's interests. Of course he's going to request X if he thinks it'll help. If the request is *granted* then the judge or whoever makes the decision thinks so too.
That's a ridiculous analogy and you know it. Heywood pointed out that it's strange for the IT guy to plead the fifth since he has been given immunity (a view that is supported by the article I previously cited). This prompted GirlyMan to question what the coverage of the immunity deal is. I provided an answer to that inquiry by sharing an article that says we won't find out about the details of the immunity deal because they're being kept a secret. It's tiresome to argue with people who put words in your mouth because you have to spend so much time just getting them to address what you actually write.

(23-06-2016 01:05 AM)morondog Wrote:  And it still has zero to do with guilt or innocence of Hilary.
Just like I still haven't claimed otherwise. The reason it was brought up in the discussion was to point out that there are signs of an upcoming indictment, not to prove that she's guilty. There are plenty other reasons to think that.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2016, 01:38 AM (This post was last modified: 23-06-2016 01:42 AM by Thumpalumpacus.)
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(23-06-2016 01:22 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Just like I still haven't claimed otherwise. The reason it was brought up in the discussion was to point out that there are signs of an upcoming indictment, not to prove that she's guilty.

I don't think it's a sign of an upcoming indictment, any more than I think your neighbor having cancer makes you more likely to die.

You're engaged in wishful thinking. If an indictment is handed down, it will be after the election and probably before the inauguration.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
23-06-2016, 01:44 AM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
Omfg I'm totally voting for Clinton now just to see Vos's head explode.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
23-06-2016, 01:57 AM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(23-06-2016 01:38 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  I don't think it's a sign of an upcoming indictment, any more than I think your neighbor having cancer makes you more likely to die.

You're engaged in wishful thinking. If an indictment is handed down, it will be after the election and probably before the inauguration.
Why do you think it will be that late? Why not before the election?

(23-06-2016 01:44 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Omfg I'm totally voting for Clinton now just to see Vos's head explode.
Meanie. Tongue

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2016, 01:58 AM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(23-06-2016 01:44 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Omfg I'm totally voting for Clinton now just to see Vos's head explode.

Meh, I've seen balloons pop before.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
23-06-2016, 04:30 AM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(22-06-2016 08:41 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(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.

You may not have used those words but that certainly seemed to be your point.

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
[+] 2 users Like BnW's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: