Random Politics & Religion #13

Haven't you figured it out yet, it's ok unless a Republican does it.

Then they must be punished to the full extent of the law, including adding more punishment the liberals/democrats would have faced if they were caught doing the same thing.

I would say to stop shitting up this thread but this thread is shitty.

If you are speaking about Clinton, the FBI files conclude that she is guilty of what most are saying about her emails, lying to the public and perjury. It is just that the grey word "Gross negligence" allowed a corrupt politician to be free.

I also don't think you understand how mounting evidence creates suspicion of non-guilt which eventually leads to a fair trial. Innocent until proven guilty also only applies to the court of law, and not necessarily the prosecution or anyone's speculation based off of evidence.



Another point, this last statement is literally what the prosecution does during court.

There is so much wrong with just about everything you said... That is not literally what the prosecution does... If it was that would be terrfying...

The fbi quite literally said there is not enough evidence to recommend bringing her to trial so it's pretty hard here to use the fbi to prove her guilt when it comes to her private email server...

And even then, it doesn't get them off at all.

Remember General Petraeus? He was found guilty of a much less breach of security.

How about General Cartwright? He was investigated, prosecuted, and plead guilty for providing information to reporters that they basically already had. When will Clinton be put on trial?

Clinton has done worse, the FBI even admitted that she and her aides have done worse then these two Generals, but still refuse to even prosecute her because Obama and Lynch told them not to.

And there is increasing evidence of collusion between Comley, the State Department, and Clinton and her aides to prevent such prosecution from happening in the first place.

The FBI practically declared that she broke the law. Intent has nothing to do with it, she did break the law, but because of political purposes, along with direction from above, she is not being prosecuted for breaking said laws.

for some reason "fracking warmonger" reminded me of the "fargin icehole" guy from Johnny Dangerously...

Yes the prosecution gathers evidence to prove guilt. Are you seriously arguing that? Man you will argue anything, you are that thick huh?

The FBI claimed they couldn't prove "Gross negligence" just negligence.

corksogger!

It's not 100% correct to say that the "FBI" said that there wasn't enough evidence. Apparently there are quite a few people who were working on the case that disagree with Comey's conclusion.

That's why you should generally ignore him unless he actually attempts to make a point.

There was no murder involved in this case/investigation, so they shouldn't even have to prove "gross negligence" at all.

see!? mosin and aman know what's up!

also nothingburger

we have reached a new low in journalism....

All I got to say is, Gary Busey is now somehow relevant to the presidential election.

That's how far you've fallen America.

Gary *** Busey.

he should be trump's VP....

How exactly is storing information that never got out on a private server worse than providing classified information to a third party? Just kinda curious on this one...

Then investigate that? Again... Going on a witch hunt does not make someone guilty... So far all that's been provided is stuff that looks bad for Clinton... You don't have anything that proves her guilt... You're just gung ho about putting her behind bars or at the very least putting her on trial to prevent her from becoming president... It's hilarious coming from some of the conservatives here who are usually found defending men accused of something... Oh they don't have enough evidence or she's lying or this or that... Don't destroy a guys life over accusations...

The best thing about all of this is no one would have even cared if she wasn't running for president... None of this would have even come up...

Welcome to every presidential run ever.

Its not even close to being worse, lol. Not even in the same ballpark.

If you think that's all that was done, you have another thing coming.

Let's list them out:

1) Storing highly sensitive and confidential information in an unsecured, off-site server that could be easily hacked (FBI even stated that there is a high possibility that it was hacked) and/or removed from the off-site location (security for that server was, what, Bill? We should be lucky it wasn't stolen from their house).
2) Retrieving such information from multiple unsecured devices, some of which have gone missing during the tenure of said Secretary of State.
3) Destruction of federal records that were subponia'd by Congress during investigation of another incident.
4) Destruction of federal records that were never submitted to the Library of Congress for recordkeeping and storage.

Each one of these items that the FBI admitted that occurred had several laws broken just by the acts of them. Just because there wasn't "intent" doesn't excuse the actors of said crimes from legal prosecution.

And now, we are finding out that there is collusion between the State Department, the FBI, and the Clinton campaign to prevent said prosecution. Might as well add a few more corruption charges on top of all the law-breaking Clinton and her cronies have committed.

You, along with certain others, think that Clinton is innocent until proven guilty. That's true, however we demand that she is proven innocent, by having a trial done on her. She can't bully/bribe an unknown jury!

Actually, she would have been prosecuted if it wasn't for the fact that she was running for president.

It's only because of the Obama administration that she isn't being prosecuted for the crimes she and her cronies committed.

You got your investigation and your answer... You're pretty much just upset to didn't get the answer you wanted... Some of the things you stated are exaggerated and some even false.... You read into how you want to and then go with it how you see fit and *** if it doesn't go your way... Sound familiar? Lol...

Still no evidence that the Obama admin was involved, nor any evidence the FBI colluded with anyone. And still not even close to the actual crimes Petraeus and Cartwright committed.

Not really.. Most of this wouldn't have even come out... The gop launched a campaign against her starting with Benghazi and when that didn't work they came across the information about the email sever and attempted to throw that at her too... There's controversy over this too... Some people on the committee that Troy gowdy heads on this investigation into Clinton even accuse him of making this all about attacking Clinton... This whole investigation has been about discrediting her for the presidential campaign...

You do realize that investigations can be reopened, right?

Just because it was closed with recommendation to not prosecute doesn't make the party innocent. Especially now that evidence is being presented that the investigation itself was compromised in benefit of the investigated.

I mean, who destroys evidence in the middle of the investigation? Who makes immunity plea bargains before the investigation starts? Who does such a sub-standard investigation, ignoring obvious points and methodologies, to suit the desires of the investigated?

That "investigation" is a sham and just the acts of the investigation dictate possible collusion. And now that the original evidence was destroyed to protect a few people, the investigators need to be charged with conspiracy to commit fraud. When is that going to happen?

Like what? And you have to prove it to be false too.

Are you for real man? Remember that game where you grab the shapes and put them into their proper hole? Yea, this is like that game. There isn't a sign telling you to put that block into that hole but if it fits then it is probably the right hole. Like why would some one not only request that emails classification (that was being investigated) be changed but also offer quid pro quo?

Come on man, you aren't this blind are you?




Posting an example would probably help your argument. There isn't a lot information for you to cite in his post.

Of course it has been, That is literally what both parties are trying to do with either candidate. At least this investigation is related to a serious issue.

Also the oversight committee could still rule to re-open the investigation.

There is actually a very strong case for Perjury as the information the provided under oath was contradicted with other testimonies and information. Proving lying vs. ignorance is pretty hard. Either way if she was that ignorant do you really want this lady to run our country?