(04-18-2018 07:00 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 05:11 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-17-2018 06:21 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  The ends justifies the means with the righties. Color me surprised.

So far, the only evidence I've seen of anything that might rise to treason or sedition relates to Hillary's server.

Of course that's all you have seen. Again, not surprising....................

What have you seen to indicate otherwise?

(04-18-2018 07:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 07:00 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 05:11 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-17-2018 06:21 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  The ends justifies the means with the righties. Color me surprised.

So far, the only evidence I've seen of anything that might rise to treason or sedition relates to Hillary's server.

Of course that's all you have seen. Again, not surprising....................

What have you seen to indicate otherwise?

Quickest thing that comes to my mind. You used to say all the time that Obama reminded you of a street hustler. There is a picture of DJT next to the definition of street hustler in Webster's. It doesn't surprise me in the least that you haven't seen any evidence of wrong doing by Trump. It is what it is......... I'm not surprised that you see treason or sedition in Hillary's past and can't find anything critical with Trump. It's as predictable as The sun will rise in the East. I was just commenting that I could have typed that response for you. It was predictable. Nothing more nothing less.

(04-18-2018 08:20 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 07:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 07:00 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 05:11 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-17-2018 06:21 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  The ends justifies the means with the righties. Color me surprised.

So far, the only evidence I've seen of anything that might rise to treason or sedition relates to Hillary's server.

Of course that's all you have seen. Again, not surprising....................

What have you seen to indicate otherwise?

Quickest thing that comes to my mind. You used to say all the time that Obama reminded you of a street hustler. There is a picture of DJT next to the definition of street hustler in Webster's. It doesn't surprise me in the least that you haven't seen any evidence of wrong doing by Trump. It is what it is......... I'm not surprised that you see treason or sedition in Hillary's past and can't find anything critical with Trump. It's as predictable as The sun will rise in the East. I was just commenting that I could have typed that response for you. It was predictable. Nothing more nothing less.

That's progress. You acknowledge that Owl697075 is a bright perceptive guy with a firm grasp on reality.

(04-18-2018 08:20 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 07:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 07:00 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 05:11 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-17-2018 06:21 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  The ends justifies the means with the righties. Color me surprised.

So far, the only evidence I've seen of anything that might rise to treason or sedition relates to Hillary's server.

Of course that's all you have seen. Again, not surprising....................

What have you seen to indicate otherwise?

Quickest thing that comes to my mind. You used to say all the time that Obama reminded you of a street hustler. There is a picture of DJT next to the definition of street hustler in Webster's. It doesn't surprise me in the least that you haven't seen any evidence of wrong doing by Trump. It is what it is......... I'm not surprised that you see treason or sedition in Hillary's past and can't find anything critical with Trump. It's as predictable as The sun will rise in the East. I was just commenting that I could have typed that response for you. It was predictable. Nothing more nothing less.

Where have I said that I didn’t see anything critical with Trump? What I’ve said is that if they prove stuff up with evidence than I hope he is prosecuted appropriately. And I have not hesitated to be critical of his policies where I disagree, such as the wall or tariffs. I guess you ignore all that.

Here’s the difference with Hillary. We have evidence (actually Comey does, and he so stated) that she has committed multiple violations of multiple criminal statutes. We have speculation, but as yet no evidence, as to crimes committed by Trump. Produce a case as solid as the one against Hillary, and I will be plenty critical. But get there first. Hint, you’re not there now. And be willing to criticize Hillary with equal vigor.

I would like for you to enunciate for me an evidentiary standard by which the information in the public domain today is sufficient to support criminal allegations against Donald Trump but not Hillary Clinton.

(04-17-2018 08:43 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  [quote='Machiavelli' pid='15254368' dateline='1524007312']
The ends justifies the means with the righties. Color me surprised.

Can't the Libturds come up with their own sayings. He copied us here and now before you know it he'll start calling us what we call them, Snowflakes.

(04-18-2018 08:20 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 07:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 07:00 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 05:11 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-17-2018 06:21 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  The ends justifies the means with the righties. Color me surprised.

So far, the only evidence I've seen of anything that might rise to treason or sedition relates to Hillary's server.

Of course that's all you have seen. Again, not surprising....................

What have you seen to indicate otherwise?

Quickest thing that comes to my mind. You used to say all the time that Obama reminded you of a street hustler. There is a picture of DJT next to the definition of street hustler in Webster's. It doesn't surprise me in the least that you haven't seen any evidence of wrong doing by Trump. It is what it is......... I'm not surprised that you see treason or sedition in Hillary's past and can't find anything critical with Trump. It's as predictable as The sun will rise in the East. I was just commenting that I could have typed that response for you. It was predictable. Nothing more nothing less.

What about Trump rises to anything remotely approaching treason or sedition?

Quote:Hillary Clinton, well over a year after she lost the 2016 election to President Trump, is less popular than ever, according to a poll released this week.

Only 27 percent of those polled had a very or somewhat positive view of the former secretary of state, according to The Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll. That makes her less popular than President Trump, whose popularity registered at 35 percent. It is a new low for her in the poll, which clocked her popularity at 30 percent in August 2017.

A Journal analysis of the poll notes that the poll is a reminder of “just how unusual” Clinton is in terms of her unpopularity -- even among recent losing presidential nominees who have typically experienced a post-election decline, but not to the extent Clinton has. At the time of the election, 40 percent had a positive view of her.

Wall Street Journal/NBC Poll



[Kermit] How do you respond to your latest popularity poll numbers and will this impact on your desire to run in 2020?

[Mrs. Clinton] (Silent nodding)

(04-18-2018 08:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 08:20 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 07:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 07:00 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 05:11 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So far, the only evidence I've seen of anything that might rise to treason or sedition relates to Hillary's server.

Of course that's all you have seen. Again, not surprising....................

What have you seen to indicate otherwise?

Quickest thing that comes to my mind. You used to say all the time that Obama reminded you of a street hustler. There is a picture of DJT next to the definition of street hustler in Webster's. It doesn't surprise me in the least that you haven't seen any evidence of wrong doing by Trump. It is what it is......... I'm not surprised that you see treason or sedition in Hillary's past and can't find anything critical with Trump. It's as predictable as The sun will rise in the East. I was just commenting that I could have typed that response for you. It was predictable. Nothing more nothing less.

What about Trump rises to anything remotely approaching treason or sedition?

He clobbered Clinton.

(04-18-2018 08:20 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 07:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 07:00 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 05:11 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-17-2018 06:21 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  The ends justifies the means with the righties. Color me surprised.

So far, the only evidence I've seen of anything that might rise to treason or sedition relates to Hillary's server.

Of course that's all you have seen. Again, not surprising....................

What have you seen to indicate otherwise?

Quickest thing that comes to my mind. You used to say all the time that Obama reminded you of a street hustler. There is a picture of DJT next to the definition of street hustler in Webster's. It doesn't surprise me in the least that you haven't seen any evidence of wrong doing by Trump. It is what it is......... I'm not surprised that you see treason or sedition in Hillary's past and can't find anything critical with Trump. It's as predictable as The sun will rise in the East. I was just commenting that I could have typed that response for you. It was predictable. Nothing more nothing less.

Sooo, nothing but more mysterious, baseless fiction. Got it.

Just looked up “street hustler” in Webster’s, funny, entry doesn’t even exist.
And the only entry I could find for Trump included President...

Now, typing in “I’m still with it>” to the google somehow still pops up a number of posters from this very site.

Sad. But true.

(04-18-2018 08:20 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 07:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 07:00 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 05:11 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So far, the only evidence I've seen of anything that might rise to treason or sedition relates to Hillary's server.

Of course that's all you have seen. Again, not surprising....................

What have you seen to indicate otherwise?

Quickest thing that comes to my mind. You used to say all the time that Obama reminded you of a street hustler. There is a picture of DJT next to the definition of street hustler in Webster's. It doesn't surprise me in the least that you haven't seen any evidence of wrong doing by Trump. It is what it is......... I'm not surprised that you see treason or sedition in Hillary's past and can't find anything critical with Trump. It's as predictable as The sun will rise in the East. I was just commenting that I could have typed that response for you. It was predictable. Nothing more nothing less.

We have evidence that Hillary Clinton committed multiple criminal violations. James Comey recited that evidence publicly.

What evidence do we have that Donald Trump actually committed any act that constitutes a criminal violation? I'm aware of all sorts of innuendo and speculation and maybe this or if that, but I'm not aware of anything that constitutes compelling evidence. Are you?

To have a crime you gnerally need,
1) an act,
2) that violates a law, and
3) that was committed while in a criminal state of mind (intentional, reckless, negligent).

Comey's hangup with prosecuting Hillary was the difficulty of proving intent. But several of the statutes that she violated are essentially strict liability statutes, not requiring any showing of intent. I can see a rationale for exercising prosecutorial discretion, in that it can be very difficult to get a jury to understand strict liability in a criminal setting. But that in no way indicates that she didn't commit crimes.

With Trump, I want you to give me some action on his part that satisfied all three prongs above--he has to have done some actual act, that act has to violate some law, and it has to have been done while in a criminal state of mind (unless the statute involved is another strict liability statute). I've not seen anything that meets all three prongs. Have you?

serious question. is it the prosecutors responsibly to determine intent?

(04-19-2018 04:23 PM)shere khan Wrote:  serious question. is it the prosecutors responsibly to determine intent?

It is the jury's responsibility to determine intent. It is the prosecutor's responsibility to introduce evidence of intent, where intent is an element of the crime being prosecuted. And the prosecutor does have the discretion to decline to prosecute for a number of reasons, one being because he or she believes that proving any element of the crime may be unreasonably difficult. But that is a prosecutor's determination to make, not a member of law enforcement. Law enforcement presents the evidence to the prosecutor, then the prosecutor determines whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant prosecution. If Comey had just recited all the evidence about Hillary that he recited, and then stopped short of recommending not prosecuting her, leaving that decision with attorney general Lynch, he would have been within his bounds. But that would have put attorney general Lynch in a bind because of her tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton. So I'm fairly certain what happened is that everybody got together and determined that the least politically damaging outcome was to do what happened.

(04-19-2018 04:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 04:23 PM)shere khan Wrote:  serious question. is it the prosecutors responsibly to determine intent?

It is the jury's responsibility to determine intent. It is the prosecutor's responsibility to introduce evidence of intent, where intent is an element of the crime being prosecuted. And the prosecutor does have the discretion to decline to prosecute for a number of reasons, one being because he or she believes that proving any element of the crime may be unreasonably difficult. But that is a prosecutor's determination to make, not a member of law enforcement. Law enforcement presents the evidence to the prosecutor, then the prosecutor determines whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant prosecution. If Comey had just recited all the evidence about Hillary that he recited, and then stopped short of recommending not prosecuting her, leaving that decision with attorney general Lynch, he would have been within his bounds. But that would have put attorney general Lynch in a bind because of her tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton. So I'm fairly certain what happened is that everybody got together and determined that the least politically damaging outcome was to do what happened.

So they took the politically expedient route because they knew Hillary would win and it wouldnt matter.

oops

intent can be looked on in different ways....just knowing or should know something is wrong and you still do it can be intent.

A sailor takes a picture on a nuclear attack submarine but as no intent of selling it or giving it to anyone else and wanted it for his own history. He is still guilty because he was told how to handle that kind of information. So just knowing can be intent. Here's a case where the Sailor went to prison http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...r-sub.html

So a reasonable jump should have been Hillary should have known that sending those emails were against the law. By knowing this, she had the intent to break the law by her actions

(04-19-2018 04:46 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 04:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 04:23 PM)shere khan Wrote:  serious question. is it the prosecutors responsibly to determine intent?

It is the jury's responsibility to determine intent. It is the prosecutor's responsibility to introduce evidence of intent, where intent is an element of the crime being prosecuted. And the prosecutor does have the discretion to decline to prosecute for a number of reasons, one being because he or she believes that proving any element of the crime may be unreasonably difficult. But that is a prosecutor's determination to make, not a member of law enforcement. Law enforcement presents the evidence to the prosecutor, then the prosecutor determines whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant prosecution. If Comey had just recited all the evidence about Hillary that he recited, and then stopped short of recommending not prosecuting her, leaving that decision with attorney general Lynch, he would have been within his bounds. But that would have put attorney general Lynch in a bind because of her tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton. So I'm fairly certain what happened is that everybody got together and determined that the least politically damaging outcome was to do what happened.

So they took the politically expedient route because they knew Hillary would win and it wouldnt matter.
oops

That would be my assessment.