posted by ptown_trojans_1I'm not defending HC, there is no defense. I was just saying factually, the FBI did not move to prosecute. Whether they should have or not is a different discussion.
My point was as far as we know, the main Russian hack was the DNC and the campaign staff, not HC's server.
Are you willing to admit that claiming there needs to be "intent" was bullshit?
posted by like_thatAre you willing to admit that claiming there needs to be "intent" was bullshit?
Regarding HC's server? I don't care. It's irrelevant now. If it becomes part of the Mueller probe, then ok, it becomes relevant again.
posted by ptown_trojans_1I'm not defending HC, there is no defense. I was just saying factually, the FBI did not move to prosecute. Whether they should have or not is a different discussion.
My point was as far as we know, the main Russian hack was the DNC and the campaign staff, not HC's server.
and found evidence of massive corruption. This keeps getting left out of the conversation. The left might be better served cleaning up the "what" as opposed to the constant wailing about the "who".
posted by like_thatAre you willing to admit that claiming there needs to be "intent" was bullshit?
"specific intent" is a term of art in the legal profession and the claim was that she did not have the specific intent required by the statute. That is her conduct did not rise to the level of criminal negligence according to Comey & co. Take it for what it's worth. No matter what, it would be a difficult case and prosecutor's rarely take cases that aren't slam dunks. But it doesn't matter because every GOP voter is convinced Hillary should be in jail. So be it.
Why are we still talking about Hillary Clinton when Donald Trump has made the global Obama apology tour look like Sherman's March when he damn near bent the knee to Vladimir Putin?
posted by like_thatI know at a bare minimum I would be terminated from my job. There already is a precedent for this and a man went to jail.
It's hilarious how ptown downplays this. The FBI (comey) even agreed that Hillary broke the law, however they (comey) pulled "intent" out of his ass to exonerate her. So no Ptown, the FBI does not disagree.
To convict someone of a crime you have to prove the criminal act and the specific intent beyond a reasonable doubt. He didn't pull it out of his ass you just don't understand what intent means in this context.
Can someone cite the statute in question? I can't imagine that whether it requires intent or not is as complicated as some want to make it.
posted by queencitybuckeyeand found evidence of massive corruption. This keeps getting left out of the conversation. The left might be better served cleaning up the "what" as opposed to the constant wailing about the "who".
I've always found it curious that the DNC wouldn't turn their server over to the DOJ for examination...instead they got a bought & paid for opinion from Crowdstrike.
My guess is there was, at minimum, incriminating evidence of campaign finance violations (and you could bet on finding similar on the RNC server).
Michael Cohen says he has a tape of trump arranging a payment to a pornstar. Lol
posted by SportsAndLadyMichael Cohen says he has a tape of trump arranging a payment to a pornstar. Lol
I just read that. So, I guess we are back to pornstars being the nation's heroes?
posted by like_thatI just read that. So, I guess we are back to pornstars being the nation's heroes?
sort of brings the whole "Russian hooker pee tape" full circle, though :)
I guess I don’t understand what the big deal is. He paid a pornstar for her time (cough cough). If anything that makes trump way cooler.
posted by ptown_trojans_1I'm not defending HC, there is no defense. I was just saying factually, the FBI did not move to prosecute. Whether they should have or not is a different discussion.
My point was as far as we know, the main Russian hack was the DNC and the campaign staff, not HC's server.
2 things:
1. You are still talking like the FBI is impartial.....they didnt prosecute HC because they were helping her. The FBI at this time was crooked.
2. You dont think the Russians hacked HC and or have the 130 classified emails that she broke federal law with?
posted by Spock2 things:
1. You are still talking like the FBI is impartial.....they didnt prosecute HC because they were helping her. The FBI at this time was crooked.
2. You dont think the Russians hacked HC and or have the 130 classified emails that she broke federal law with?
If the FBI was helping Hillary, why in the world would the director re-open the email investigation in the days leading up to the elections. Seems like a funny way of helping.
You say a lot of things that are your opinions as though they are facts. Just because you believe the FBI is crooked or that Hillary is guilty of a crime or that the media is in a conspiracy against Trump doesn't make these things so. Arguments like "your head is in the sand" or "do you ACTUALLY believe?" are not arguments. They are merely ways of saying your opinions louder (figuratively).
I believe the FBI is crooked? No EVERYONE knows the FBI is crooked. HC did do crimes. She mishandled classified material.
posted by SpockI believe the FBI is crooked? No EVERYONE knows the FBI is crooked. HC did do crimes. She mishandled classified material.
So now you are able to speak for “everyone”?
You our are entitled to your opinions as we all are. Would you acknowledge though that like other human beings, you see the world through a self-created filter that tends to arrange what we take in in such a way to boister and confirm what we already think? I do this too, so I’m not suggesting you are unique. But if you acknowledge that this exists in the midst of our perceptions, you realize that perhaps not all is as simple or black and white as we think.
posted by SportsAndLadyI guess I don’t understand what the big deal is. He paid a pornstar for her time (cough cough). If anything that makes trump way cooler.
I'm not sure why the need for all the cloak-and-dagger. It mostly seems to center around a possible campaign finance violation. Ironically, it would be very Clinton-esque if it's ultimately Trump's penis that gets him impeached.
But I'd be willing to bet Cohen has evidence of some seriously shady and illegal Trump business dealings. And if that's the case, buckle-up for "fruit from the poisonous tree" as Mueller tries to do an end-around on attorney/client privilege.
Trump needs to be very careful with how he handles the Julian Assange situation. Ecuador is apparently setting up to withdraw asylum protection in their London embassy and hand him over to the UK authorities. He then could be (most likely) extradited to the US. If Trump decides to go after Assange his administration is over. Not to even mention the threat to our freedom of press in this country. Let's see how foolish this turns out.
This could end very badly, folks.
An 11 minute video that explains what's going on with the Assange situation:
posted by CenterBHSFanTrump needs to be very careful with how he handles the Julian Assange situation. Ecuador is apparently setting up to withdraw asylum protection in their London embassy and hand him over to the UK authorities. He then could be (most likely) extradited to the US. If Trump decides to go after Assange his administration is over. Not to even mention the threat to our freedom of press in this country. Let's see how foolish this turns out.
This could end very badly, folks.
Trump admin over? You cant make that claim without backing it up. What does Assange have that would wreck a US presidency?
posted by SpockTrump admin over? You cant make that claim without backing it up. What does Assange have that would wreck a US presidency?
Look he can mock CNN all he wants, he can even call them fake news because he doesn't like them. But going after Wikileaks for publishing information is going after freedom of the press in this country. It doesn't matter if you or anyone else agrees with WL or Assange.
It's not what Assange has that is the issue. It is "if" the Trump admin goes after freedom of the press in some legal manner. Even you, Spock, would have a hard time supporting that.
