Trump turns self in to Fulton county authorities
- Thread starter AC2020
- Start date
There is no version. There is what he said and the legal reasoning for why she wasn't charged.
Do you even know what it is? Did your right-wing propagandists not tell you?
Do a little independent research for once. It isn't hard to understand if you would take just a minute and get off your right-wing websites.
I asked for your version maybe you could dazzle us with your legal brilliance.
And again, I've told you that I don't have a "version." I have what Comey stated and the actual legal conclusion of the investigation.
Do you know what this was? Yes or no? Do you just know the right-wing spin you heard from your propagandists? Yes or no?
Let me know if you don't know. I'll be more than glad to help you out.
You have a version of your truth, I have mine. You can share yours if you wish or continue own with your self righteousness. Really doesn't matter but is very telling.
There are not different versions of the truth here. There is the truth and then there is the right-wing spin you choose to foolishly embrace.
Since you apparently don't know, let's just start with Comey's own words. You could have easily found these btw if you took the time to get away from your right-wing propagandists.
"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information . . ."
"Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past."
"In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."
Now, do you notice a consistent criminal legal principle being referenced in those three quotes?
Sleepy wants to pat yer head while you kiss his ring like a good little boy.
Interesting how intent is so differently used in these cases don't you think?
Which cases are you referencing? How is intent being used differently in whatever cases you are referencing?
Playing obtuse again? What does the word "cases" mean to you?
I have no idea. Do you know how many legal cases there are right now in this country?
Be specific. Which cases are you referencing?
Oh I don't know, maybe the case that would be relevant to Hillary's case. SMFH
I don't like to assume, but I assume you are talking about Trump's case since you don't want to be specific.
And if that is true, have you read the indictment? Have you considered the evidence cited in the indictment apart from what your right-wing propagandists have told you?
Trump is on tape man. You do know, this right? He is literally waving around a classified document and talking. Expressing his intent.
Again, seriously! Wake up. Stop being such an easy pawn.
You of all people should know how court works.
I do. As well as how prosecutors operate, since I was one.
And I'm trying to help you understand how it works too instead of believing the lies your right-wing propagandists feed you every day.
Are you willing to listen or do you just want to continue to believe the lies?
The nice thing is we will see how it all works out and if needed all the way up to the appeals process but I don't think it goes that far.
Yes, we will see how it works out. And I'm sure when (and I say when because I think Trump will be convicted of some of the crimes he has been charged with) Trump is convicted, he will appeal. Which is his right and a right he will be afforded. Which I fully support. We don't live in an authoritarian country. Trump is being treated just as any other American would be treated. No person is above the law.
But as it relates to Trump and Clinton, the two cases are very different. And it turns on the principal of criminal intent. Trump's intent was able to be established by the evidence at the charging stage, it wasn't for Clinton. That is the major difference.
The state made up a story for you.
Which is basically the definition.
I can’t make you smarter.
You swallow all the state sponsored propaganda.
Yes, but it’s against the law for you to read it.
Now you are just flailing. No law exists that tells me I can't read your opinion.
If you don't have a coherent response Styrofoam, then just don't respond. You look silly right now.
Apparently there’s a law preventing you from grasping sarcasm, dipshit.
You were a good little cult member when Cuomo told you not to read it, right?
What the heck are you talking about?
I think you only make sense in your own head. Meanwhile, we are all laughing at you.
Do better lol.
Yeah, that's the Alph we know. Maybe a vid will drop soon and you'll have some point to make.
I get all my news from Billy and Spud.
The fact that you have to ask this question shows how ignorant you are of what is currently occuring in the American political arena.
We liberals are enjoying ourselves right now watching you right-wing goons.
Keep it up, we are counting on it!
You told me CNN was a reliable news source.
And you think you’re better informed?
Thats too funny.
When did I tell you CNN was reliable news source? Please quote where I said that.
Search it up. What you got?
Don’t need to search.
I asked you where you got your news.
You answered.
Weird the stuff you forget.
Similar threads
