FBI Now Mercs For Hire? FBI Helped Hillary Undermine Trump Campaign

[Delldude]

So far, democrats are very honest in comparison.

 

[schmidlap]

If you trust it so much, why is there are two sets of law books?

Your Marvel edition doesn't count.

Check out Little, Brown & Company's publications of United States Statutes at Large .

 

[Nostra]

I accept the American system of jurisprudence, and trust prosecutorial zeal to prove guilty whoever, until then, is innocent, regardless of how stridently or for however long hyper-partisans shriek

View attachment 647705
"LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!"​

Keeping classified material, including SAP, on an unsecured server is a felony.

Hitlery clearly did that. You can twist and spin all you want, but that is a fact.

 

[schmidlap]

Keeping classified material, including SAP, on an unsecured server is a felony.

If anyone is indicted, prosecuted, and found guilty of doing so in a court of law, that person is guilty.

There must be no shortage of partisans eager to bring such charges if the evidence so merits, I'm sure.

 

[Delldude]

Your Marvel edition doesn't count.

Check out Little, Brown & Company's publications of United States Statutes at Large .

Those the ones that come in two editions?

 

[Nostra]

If anyone is indicted, prosecuted, and found guilty of doing so in a court of law, that person is guilty.

There must be no shortage of partisans eager to bring such charges if the evidence so merits, I'm sure.

Like I said, you can twist and spin all you want, but it won’t change the facts.

 

[Delldude]

If anyone is indicted, prosecuted, and found guilty of doing so in a court of law, that person is guilty.

There must be no shortage of partisans eager to bring such charges if the evidence so merits, I'm sure.

It's the part about getting indicted that seems to follow strict party lines, for some odd reason.

 

[para bellum]

If anyone is indicted, prosecuted, and found guilty of doing so in a court of law, that person is guilty.

Meh. Most crimes go unsolved or unprosecuted. Doesn't mean the perpetrator didn't do it.

Lots of guilty people go unpunished.

Clearance rate - crime by type in the U.S. 2020 | Statista

In 2020, murder and manslaughter charges had the highest crime clearance rate in the United States, with 54.4 percent of all cases being cleared by arrest or so-called exceptional means.

www.statista.com

 

[schmidlap]

Like I said, you can twist and spin all you want, but it won’t change the facts.

Legal facts such as the identification, apprehension, and indictments of hundreds of Trump goons, with convictions and confessions aplenty.

Since he fled justice, this Trump goon remains legally innocent:

January 6 Capitol riot defendant granted asylum in Belarus
​

In fact, I would make that alienation from America an option available to all Trump goons in lieu of incarceration.
I would not extend such a courtesy to Ms Clinton if she is ever convicted of a crime.

 

[Nostra]

Legal facts such as the identification, apprehension, and indictments of hundreds of Trump goons, with convictions and confessions aplenty.

Since he fled justice, this Trump goon remains legally innocent:

January 6 Capitol riot defendant granted asylum in Belarus
​

In fact, I would make that alienation from America an option available to all Trump goons in lieu of incarceration.
I would not extend such a courtesy to Ms Clinton if she is ever convicted of a crime.

Hitlery still committed a felony, but keep spinning and twisting.

 

[schmidlap]

Hitlery still committed a felony, but keep spinning and twisting.

Your biased opinion vs indictment, trial, and conviction in accordance with all the requisites of American jurisprudence?

I'll respect the latter.

Others can just get wee wee'd up and screech

"LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!"​

 

[schmidlap]

Meh. Most crimes go unsolved or unprosecuted. Doesn't mean the perpetrator didn't do it.

In the case of prominent malefactors where there is credible evidence of a crime, you can rely on hyper-partisan zealotry among prosecutors hellbent upon indicting if they can find a pretext, of course.

No amount of hyper-partisan ardor justifies abandoning the legal principle of innocent until proven guilty.

I never subscribed to the proposition that Trump actively conspired with Putin just because Putin was proven tom try to help Trump and hurt Clinton in 2016.

Neither did Special Counsel Mueller.

 

[Delldude]

In the case of prominent malefactors where there is credible evidence of a crime, you can rely on hyper-partisan zealotry among prosecutors hellbent upon indicting if they can find a pretext, of course.

No amount of hyper-partisan ardor justifies abandoning the legal principle of innocent until proven guilty.

I never subscribed to the proposition that Trump actively conspired with Putin just because Putin was proven tom try to help Trump and hurt Clinton in 2016.

Neither did Special Counsel Mueller.

Sounds so swampy to me.....

 

[schmidlap]

Sounds so swampy to me.....

American jurisprudence is not to everyone's liking.

Developing and presenting evidence of criminality with the opportunity for it to be refuted is not as expeditious as locking someone up whenever a mob screeches that he or she should be locked up.

 

[para bellum]

In the case of prominent malefactors where there is credible evidence of a crime, you can rely on hyper-partisan zealotry among prosecutors hellbent upon indicting if they can find a pretext, of course.

Sure, if the prominent malefactor is a republican. If they are a democrat I can rely on those same hyper-partisan prosecutors to look the other way.

No amount of hyper-partisan ardor justifies abandoning the legal principle of innocent until proven guilty.

And when dems can't come up with evidence, they try you in the media like they did with Trump-Russia.

Adam Schiff, James Clapper, and John Brennan all went on TV and said they had personally seen proof of collusion and that Trump was guilty of Treason. That's the DNI, the DCIA, and the Chairman of the House Intelligence Cmte. People who are supposed to know things that we don't know, supposedly serious people with important responsibilities- and they were blatantly lying, fully aware when they did it.

For politics.

I never subscribed to the proposition that Trump actively conspired with Putin just because Putin was proven tom try to help Trump and hurt Clinton in 2016.

Neither did Special Counsel Mueller.

I do not find that believable. I think if I looked, I would find a lot of posts from you that would at least lead me to believe you though the allegations from the Steele dossier were credible. Am I wrong?

Nothing was ever "proven" to me except that democrats are pathological liars. Everyone already knew that Putin hated Hillary for saying he was not legitimately elected, and for her preening on about how the "Russian people deserved a free and fair election".

Like she was ever interested in fair elections- makes me want to retch.

Yes, other countries use propaganda in the US. News flash- bad rivets sunk the titanic...

Anyone who tells me they are inside the mind of Putin, I call bullshit. The so-called IC assessment was put out by people deeply involved in the collusion scheme, at an operational level. Comey, Clapper, Brennan.

Mueller was a figurehead, the investigation was ran by one of the sleaziest lawyers in D.C- Andrew Weissmann. Famous for his prosecutorial misconduct in the Enron case.

And the FBI perpetuated the hoax long after they knew it was a political hit job, including the entire Mueller investigation, which was nothing but a perjury trap from start to finish.

I do not expect justice to be served, that would not be realistic and the damage cannot be undone. There was a brief moment I thought Barr would step up to the plate and at least hose down the FBI, but it didn't happen.

Sussman is a nobody. We don't care about Sussman. Durham went after him so he could get the discovery that proves the Clinton campaign was behind the Russia collusion hoax. Durham will not reach past Sussman- he just wants to use Sussman to portray the FBI as the victim.

The documents that convict Sussman for lying to Baker are the same documents that prove the Russia hoax was a fabrication of the Clinton campaign- Sussman's client. So Trump gets a consolation prize in the public disclosures, the perpetrators walk away scott free, and the FBI's reputation is "protected", so they imagine...

 

[Nostra]

Your biased opinion vs indictment, trial, and conviction in accordance with all the requisites of American jurisprudence?

I'll respect the latter.

Others can just get wee wee'd up and screech

View attachment 647744
"LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!"​

Not an opinion. Fact.

Tell me, is it illegal to store SAP info on an unsecure server?

 

[schmidlap]

Sure, if the prominent malefactor is a republican. If they are a democrat I can rely on those same hyper-partisan prosecutors to look the other way.

Hyper-partisan crackpots reject democracy and our justice system. They pretend that there are no Trumpy or even Republican prosecutors, judges, legislators, etc., or that the ones there are are all corrupt and/or incompetent.

Their weird worship demands that they swallow blatant lies without even attempting anymore to contrive credible evidence: e.g., a vast, concerted, coordinated conspiracy by Republican and Democratic governors, secretaries of state, attorneys general, etc. who certified their states' election results, often after recounts, audits, court challenges, etc.

They have not even contrived a single suspect, an explanation of how their monumental caper supposedly worked, or anything that could withstand judicial scrutiny, even in the most regressive states. In their irrational "Big Steal" of a "Landslide!" They need none.

Weird worshipers have their blind faith. They lash out hysterically and indulge in spiteful vendettas, becoming angry because they can't defend their dogma with anything of substance.

 

[schmidlap]

Not an opinion. Fact.

Tell me, is it illegal to store SAP info on an unsecure server?

I'm neither judge, nor jury, nor pretend to be.

Under our system of justice, evidence of criminality is assessed by prosecutors (of which there is no partisan shortage in this case) and, if deemed sufficient, indictments are issued and the accused stands trial, with the opportunity to rebut or refute whatever evidentiary charges are submitted. The case is carefully considered, and a verdict is then issued.

I enthusiastically support that admirable American process. It is far more apt to achieve justice than is a mob screeching, "Lock her up! Lock her up!"

 

[DBA]

It's almost too much information for most people to process which is why their case will be difficult to prove.

This is it exactly. Democratic politicians are as crooked as a dog’s hind leg, but they aren’t all stupid. They knew all of this would be too much to digest in a world where one sentence tweets and headlines dominate the political landscape. They did something similarly conniving with the changing of the election law. By empowering individual activists to harvest votes, there was no smoking gun and there were far too many individual cases to investigate. Brilliant strategy which they would love nothing more to adopt for all future elections.

 

[Nostra]

I'm neither judge, nor jury, nor pretend to be.

Under our system of justice, evidence of criminality is assessed by prosecutors (of which there is no partisan shortage in this case) and, if deemed sufficient, indictments are issued and the accused stands trial, with the opportunity to rebut or refute whatever evidentiary charges are submitted. The case is carefully considered, and a verdict is then issued.

I enthusiastically support that admirable American process. It is far more apt to achieve justice than is a mob screeching, "Lock her up! Lock her up!"

Your pathetic dodge confirms your answer is "Yes, yes it is illegal but I don't want to admit it".

Dismissed.