Breaking: Hillary aide broke no laws. Conservatives have some explaining to do

[ClosedCaption]

Embarrassing news for conservatives who accused Huma Abedin of breaking the law. It is being reported that the DOJ decided not to charge her with anything.

Liberals, please do not conservatives morons or idiots. Everyone makes mistakes and I don't believe they purposely pretended Abedin’s broke the law. Stupidity may have been the culprit.

Maybe they WANTED it to be the case that Huma Abedin broke the law, so they just typed it up as a fact. I forgive you dumbasses. You are not evil.

State Dept. opened 'criminal investigation' of Huma Abedin

Not being charged =/= didn't break any laws.

I mean I would hope you already knew that, but I doubt it.

Not being charged is even more indicative of innocence than a not-guilty verdict. It means there wasn't even grounds for a trial to begin at all. You knew that, retard. But you played dumb.

No, incorrect. I was in law enforcement for 24 years and I can tell you , there are a MYRIAD of reasons, many of them not having ANYTHING to do with guilt or innocence, why a person may not be charged with a crime.

That's just a fact.

Translation: I will never ever give up hope that someone did something wrong. Proving it doesnt matter! I BELIEVE IT!!!

Can you point to where I said I believe anyone did anything wrong moron?

My bad, I didnt realize that when you said someone broke the law you meant they did something right.

 

[Care4all]

Embarrassing news for conservatives who accused Huma Abedin of breaking the law. It is being reported that the DOJ decided not to charge her with anything.

Liberals, please do not conservatives morons or idiots. Everyone makes mistakes and I don't believe they purposely pretended Abedin’s broke the law. Stupidity may have been the culprit.

Maybe they WANTED it to be the case that Huma Abedin broke the law, so they just typed it up as a fact. I forgive you dumbasses. You are not evil.

State Dept. opened 'criminal investigation' of Huma Abedin

Not being charged =/= didn't break any laws.

I mean I would hope you already knew that, but I doubt it.

Not being charged is even more indicative of innocence than a not-guilty verdict. It means there wasn't even grounds for a trial to begin at all. You knew that, retard. But you played dumb.

No, incorrect. I was in law enforcement for 24 years and I can tell you , there are a MYRIAD of reasons, many of them not having ANYTHING to do with guilt or innocence, why a person may not be charged with a crime.

That's just a fact.

Since you have been law enforcement for 24 years,
could you please give an example of why a person may not be charged even though everyone knows they are guilty?

I just am having a hard time wrapping my head around that...?

I was thinking, maybe, if law enforcement did not follow the Law on the arrest, like giving the guy his Miranda rights, or searching without a search warrant or even having a search warrant for a certain time and going outside of those warrant times to do the search....these are procedural misgivings....but out side of these type of things, can you pretty please give an example!?!?

 

[Claudette]

A Hildebeast aid broke no laws?? How bout Hildebeast??

Oh wait. They are still investigating her. Never mind.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Embarrassing news for conservatives who accused Huma Abedin of breaking the law. It is being reported that the DOJ decided not to charge her with anything.

Liberals, please do not conservatives morons or idiots. Everyone makes mistakes and I don't believe they purposely pretended Abedin’s broke the law. Stupidity may have been the culprit.

Maybe they WANTED it to be the case that Huma Abedin broke the law, so they just typed it up as a fact. I forgive you dumbasses. You are not evil.

State Dept. opened 'criminal investigation' of Huma Abedin

Not being charged =/= didn't break any laws.

I mean I would hope you already knew that, but I doubt it.

Not being charged is even more indicative of innocence than a not-guilty verdict. It means there wasn't even grounds for a trial to begin at all. You knew that, retard. But you played dumb.

No, incorrect. I was in law enforcement for 24 years and I can tell you , there are a MYRIAD of reasons, many of them not having ANYTHING to do with guilt or innocence, why a person may not be charged with a crime.

That's just a fact.

Since you have been law enforcement for 24 years,
could you please give an example of why a person may not be charged even though everyone knows they are guilty?

I just am having a hard time wrapping my head around that...?

I was thinking, maybe, if law enforcement did not follow the Law on the arrest, like giving the guy his Miranda rights, or searching without a search warrant or even having a search warrant for a certain time and going outside of those warrant times to do the search....these are procedural misgivings....but out side of these type of things, can you pretty please give an example!?!?

Sure

political pressure not to prosecute - Especially in non violent crimes. It happens ALL the time. No real victim to complain and so ....

Of course the obvious procedural errors that you mentioned.

Other times where "everyone knows they committed a crime" and yet the evidence just isn't there to make a guilty verdict likely. (prosecutors hate taking on cases they aren't sure of winning)

Believe it or not, there are cases that aren't tried simply because the government doesn't want certain evidences made public That is why the Bush Justice Department fought for military tribunals for terrorists , for example. The didn't want certain facts being made public (IE how we obtained the information)

I've seen it all happen first hand, as I said many reasons a person who may or may not be guilty is not tried.