The One Question No One So Far Can Answer

[Ame®icano]

No law was broken by firing Comey. Comey testified himself that Hillary broke the law and that he failed to carry out his duty and responsibilities as Director of the FBI. 'Nuff justification to fire him. 'Nuff said.

Please stay on topic..

I DID stay on topic. In your 'fantasy' no law was broken. No law was broken by firing Comey, either. It was justified.

Comey also said that even if the law was broken there was no criminal intent, needed to get a conviction. Think of it like the person who drops a ten dollar bill, being cited for littering.

Think of it like a person with the gun in the holster walks into bank to deposit a check, but they give him all money instead, which he takes and walks away. No intention to rob the bank, it just happened that they give him a money.

 

[hadit]

[
2. What crime was committed that the IRS missed?

The IRS is prevented from reporting crimninal activities from tax filers, except for violations of the tax law. That's how they get around the 5th amendment to compel people to file a 1040.

Okay, since the IRS is prevented from reporting, and obviously YOU know, please do tell us what crime is concealed in Trump's tax returns?

 

[radical right]

well I was brought up that ignorance of the law doesn't keep one out of trouble.

That is true as a "general rule", but each criminal statute has it's own requirements. Such as to be convicted of disclosing classified information, the person needs to know that the information was classified.

 

[radical right]

Think of it like a person with the gun in the holster walks into bank to deposit a check, but they give him all money instead, which he takes and walks away. No intention to rob the bank, it just happened that they give him a money.

Strangely you're right. He can't be found guilty of bank robbery. But he might still face charges from weapons posession, to larceny by trick or device.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

I've posed this hypothetical question to a couple of members and so far no one seems up to the task of providing an answer. So now I'm posing it the whole board.

Ok, here's a hypothetical scenario. Let's say a Trump associate spoke to a Russian representative. The Russian told him we have some really bad shit on the hildabitch and the representative said wow, it would sure help us if you released it on Tuesday and they did exactly that.

Tell me, what specific law would have been broken? Don't give me an opinion, quote the law.

Any takers?

.

18 U.S. Code § 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments

"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

Of course, you'll not accept this and quibble about what the definition of "is" is, but I'm not going to follow you down one of your ******* myriad rabbit holes! The person in your 'hypothetical' scenario would have committed a felony.

The DNC and the bitches campaign are private entities and not the US.

.

I said you'd ******* quibble! Your misdirection is noted and graded a FAIL! You're now taking your own DECLARED HYPOYHETICAL into another realm invoking the DNC and the Clinton campaign. Therefore, that's just another of your ******* non sequiturs to dodge and pivot from your stupidity!

The hypothetical person of your creation can be, "Any citizen of the United States..." (first clause of the Statute). Now how about sticking to your OWN ******* PREMISE, Tex? You're wrong in your assumption given the scenario YOU laid out. Live with it, shit for brains!

You might want to read the OP again the ***** was clearly mentioned. Also I have maintained civil responses in this thread and I would appreciate you do the same. If you can't don't expect a response.

.

So what if Clinton was "mentioned". That is totally irrelevant!

It was the HYPOTHETICAL ACTION of a HYPOTHETICAL "Trump Associate" taking place between him and a HYPOTHETICAL RUSSIAN representative that was the subject of your HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION and implied challenge to find a statute covering any wrongdoing within that HYPOTHETICAL tale. That is the conduct that would be violative of 18 U.S. Code § 953, and those ACTIONS are the relative maters vis-à-vis the Statute cited and your HYPOTHETICAL!

Your reference to Clinton and the DNC has absolutely nothing to do with the situation except as subjects, read that as props, within that scenario of your device and construction. Your challenge was met, but I knew you'd quibble and you have, simply to dissemble and cover your ire over being shown that a Federal Statute did, indeed, exist proving that type of conduct is unlawful!

Whether you respond or not is up to you, Tex!

 

[radical right]

Okay, since the IRS is prevented from reporting, and obviously YOU know, please do tell us what crime is concealed in Trump's tax returns?

That's why the democrats want to see Trumps tax forms.

 

[Ame®icano]

You just posted a full agreement with my statement. Whether from incompetence, or inability to know right from wrong, there was no criminal intent, proof of which is needed to get a conviction.

REVISITING THIS COMMENT:

'Hillary did not intend to break the law'
.

As I said, if you can't prove "criminal intent" you can't convict under the statute.

The only reason to operate private email server is with intent to hide the information (classified or not) she was sending and receiving. If there was no intent to commit the crime, there wouldn't be a reason to bleachbit it.

 

[jc456]

Okay, since the IRS is prevented from reporting, and obviously YOU know, please do tell us what crime is concealed in Trump's tax returns?

That's why the democrats want to see Trumps tax forms.

what is the supposed crime they'd be looking for though?

 

[Ame®icano]

The very definition of his position gives him the authority to chose what the FBI pursues or chooses not to.

WTF are you talking about? What was there to pursue further? Comey testified that the FBI's CONCLUDED investigation into Hillary proved Hillary DID break the law. He then testified that HE decided not to recommend indictment because HE believed she did not know she was breaking the law.

According to the law it does not matter if one knew or did not know they were breaking the law, they are still GUILTY of breaking the law...which is what Comey testified Hillary did. According to the LAW Comey should have recommended Hillary be indicted. HE did not do that because HE decided it was not worth the DOJ pursuing further.

Comey testified HE believed Hillary was INNOCENT because HE believed she did not know she was breaking the law. All of that was NOT HIS DECISION to make. That was for a court / jury to decide.

Comey's responsibility was to determine if there was enough evidence to prove Hillary broke the law, which he testified that he did. At that point, having proved a crime was committed, his job was to recommend indictment. he refused to do that and protected Hillary.

You have better chances to convince the wall. Left don't care about anything you say, regardless of what law says, or what proof you provide, for left the answer is only what they want it to be.

 

[jc456]

You just posted a full agreement with my statement. Whether from incompetence, or inability to know right from wrong, there was no criminal intent, proof of which is needed to get a conviction.

REVISITING THIS COMMENT:

'Hillary did not intend to break the law'
.

As I said, if you can't prove "criminal intent" you can't convict under the statute.

The only reason to operate private email server is with intent to hide the information (classified or not) she was sending and receiving. If there was no intent to commit the crime, there wouldn't be a reason to bleachbit it.

that and the 30k of deleted emails. hmmm someone was thinking they were in trouble.

 

[radical right]

The only reason to operate private email server is with intent to hide the information (classified or not) she was sending and receiving. If there was no intent to commit the crime, there wouldn't be a reason to bleachbit it.

I'm glad you agree that Bush should have been charged and convicted of a crime, when he set up a private e-mail server in the white house (owned by the RNC), where millions of e-mails were erased to cover up his firing of the US attorneys, which were being subpeoned. MILLIONS of e-mails.

 

[jc456]

well I was brought up that ignorance of the law doesn't keep one out of trouble.

That is true as a "general rule", but each criminal statute has it's own requirements. Such as to be convicted of disclosing classified information, the person needs to know that the information was classified.

she wouldn't have deleted 30k of emails if there was no knowledge.

 

[Ame®icano]

Think of it like a person with the gun in the holster walks into bank to deposit a check, but they give him all money instead, which he takes and walks away. No intention to rob the bank, it just happened that they give him a money.

Strangely you're right. He can't be found guilty of bank robbery. But he might still face charges from weapons posession, to larceny by trick or device.

I'm not talking about bank robber, just about average 2nd amendment respecting citizen.

Charges for weapon possession based on what?

 

[jc456]

The only reason to operate private email server is with intent to hide the information (classified or not) she was sending and receiving. If there was no intent to commit the crime, there wouldn't be a reason to bleachbit it.

I'm glad you agree that Bush should have been charged and convicted of a crime, when he set up a private e-mail server in the white house (owned by the RNC), where millions of e-mails were erased to cover up his firing of the US attorneys, which were being subpeoned. MILLIONS of e-mails.

 

[radical right]

that and the 30k of deleted emails. hmmm someone was thinking they were in trouble.

I'm glad you agree that Bush should have been charged and convicted of a crime, when he set up a private e-mail server in the white house (owned by the RNC), where millions of e-mails were erased to cover up his firing of the US attorneys, which were being subpoenaed. MILLIONS of e-mails.

 

[Ame®icano]

Okay, since the IRS is prevented from reporting, and obviously YOU know, please do tell us what crime is concealed in Trump's tax returns?

That's why the democrats want to see Trumps tax forms.

Left wanted to see his tax returns soon after he announced to run. What crimes he was guilty of then?

 

[jc456]

that and the 30k of deleted emails. hmmm someone was thinking they were in trouble.

I'm glad you agree that Bush should have been charged and convicted of a crime, when he set up a private e-mail server in the white house (owned by the RNC), where millions of e-mails were erased to cover up his firing of the US attorneys, which were being subpoenaed. MILLIONS of e-mails.

I don't accept your deflection. intent was made when the 30k of emails was deleted. Hitlery jail baby.

 

[radical right]

Charges for weapon possession based on what?

Businesses may "exclude weapons on their premises" Examples include airlines, federal buildings, and court houses.

 

[hadit]

Okay, since the IRS is prevented from reporting, and obviously YOU know, please do tell us what crime is concealed in Trump's tax returns?

That's why the democrats want to see Trumps tax forms.

So, IOW, a witch hunt.

 

[radical right]

that and the 30k of deleted emails. hmmm someone was thinking they were in trouble.

I'm glad you agree that Bush should have been charged and convicted of a crime, when he set up a private e-mail server in the white house (owned by the RNC), where millions of e-mails were erased to cover up his firing of the US attorneys, which were being subpoenaed. MILLIONS of e-mails.

I don't accept your deflection. intent was made when the 30k of emails was deleted. Hitlery jail baby.

You said setting up a private e-mail server, and deleting 30K e-mails was proof of guilt.

I showed here Bush set up a private e-mail server and deleted MILLIONS of e-mails, so I presume you take that as Bush being thousands of times as guilty.