Help choose the next fake scandal

what should the next fake scandal be?

  • OMFG HER HUSBAND GOT A BLOWJOB 20 YEARS AGOZ!!!! ONOZ!!

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • is not a white male

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • is not voting for openly racist candidate trump

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    21

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Hillary got off on intent. He kept saying intent needed to be found and there was none to be found. That has always been the job of the tryer of fact, the jury. In any other crime like this when one is investigated and found to have been in violation of the law, they would be indited and tried before a jury.

I smell shit.
If bypassing a government server is not intent I don't know what is..she made a definitive decision to do this.
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Russia released the emails that two different espionage agencies stole from her compromised server.

Yet the FBI didn't find anything.

And we're supposed to think there's no corruption in government.

The arrogance of power is breathtaking sometimes.
ROFL..right?

We are pathetic and deserve ourselves.

'But what can we dooooooooooooo..?

Bernie2016!
 

ThickStemz

Well-Known Member
If bypassing a government server is not intent I don't know what is..she made a definitive decision to do this.
I agree with you, I hope that was clear as it was intended to be my point. The FBI presser gentleman kept saying lack of intent, that was his primary focus for a reason to not recommend prosecution. But more importantly, it shouldn't matter, the determination of what is or isn't intent is a matter for the jury to decide. It always has been.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
I agree with you, I hope that was clear as it was intended to be my point. The FBI presser gentleman kept saying lack of intent, that was his primary focus for a reason to not recommend prosecution. But more importantly, it shouldn't matter, the determination of what is or isn't intent is a matter for the jury to decide. It always has been.
and "no reasonable prosecutor" would try to bring the case in front of a jury. if you're gonna cite what the guy had to say, you can't just pick and choose.

well, you can pick and choose but that only exposes you for the hypocrite you are.

subway.
 

ThickStemz

Well-Known Member
and "no reasonable prosecutor" would try to bring the case in front of a jury. if you're gonna cite what the guy had to say, you can't just pick and choose.

well, you can pick and choose but that only exposes you for the hypocrite you are.

subway.
Dude wtf are you talking about? If an individual named Samantha Gibson was a high level government employee who had the same circumstances as the individual named Hillary Clinton, would law enforcement give her the presumption of innocence? That is something law enforcement doesn't do when ordinary or even less prominent people do something potentially illegal, both have to rely upon juries.

And there would be an army of attorneys willing to make a name by prosecuting Hillary Clinton.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Dude wtf are you talking about? If an individual named Samantha Gibson was a high level government employee who had the same circumstances as the individual named Hillary Clinton, would law enforcement give her the presumption of innocence? That is something law enforcement doesn't do when ordinary or even less prominent people do something potentially illegal, both have to rely upon juries.

And there would be an army of attorneys willing to make a name by prosecuting Hillary Clinton.
yet here we are, no charges brought, no indictment, nothing.

your illustrious law career ended when you started stealing from your parents to feed your heroin habit.
 

ThickStemz

Well-Known Member
yet here we are, no charges brought, no indictment, nothing.

your illustrious law career ended when you started stealing from your parents to feed your heroin habit.
It's like you can't read. Have you read it? Does it sound like a glowing exoneration to you? He said what was done was a felony, intentionally treating highly classified documents so recklessly, except Hillary was just negligent. Bullshit.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Just listen at the end he basically says if anyone else where to do what she did they would suffer consequences. So just because she is Shitlary Clinton she is getting off scot free, does seam a lil fucked up.
Ahhh losing the discussion lets just say something retarded and move along.
How in the fuck was this fake? Nothing came from it because of this astoundingly corrupt government we have.
Russia released the emails that two different espionage agencies stole from her compromised server.

Yet the FBI didn't find anything.

And we're supposed to think there's no corruption in government.

The arrogance of power is breathtaking sometimes.
Still going to claim a criminal act in spite of the fact the FBI found no evidence of one. Hanging onto this scandal like all the others. As if an accusation is the same as a trial and guilty verdict.

Did you know that Trump raped a child? Four times. In front of other people, yuck.
 

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Still going to claim a criminal act in spite of the fact the FBI found no evidence of one. Hanging onto this scandal like all the others. As if an accusation is the same as a trial and guilty verdict.
I don't think you'll maintain a lot of credibility by attempting to deny that she broke the law.

I'm using it as an example of selective enforcement.

BTW, State is still investigating.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
I don't think you'll maintain a lot of credibility by attempting to deny that she broke the law.

I'm using it as an example of selective enforcement.

BTW, State is still investigating.
Look, I don't make shit up. I don't know what happened with those emails. I do know that Sanders isn't running for prez and that the FBI didn't find evidence of criminal act. You can make up whatever you like. I'll continue to stick to the side where reality can be found.
 
Top