Frothers Unite! UK

General Apathy wrote:HRC - prison or hospital? You never did answer, and no thousands of violations of the espionage act is not a bullshit charge.

Yes I did, dipshit. What part of "neither" are you having trouble wrapping your wee head around?

Not an acceptable answer.

If she claimed she could not remember how to handle classified material, and did NOT mean all the way back to the six years on the SASC, then she knowingly violated the espionage act thousands of times.

If she claimed she could not remember how to handle classified material, and DID mean all the way back to the six years on the SASC, then she's indicating severe memory loss and possible brain damage.

The fact she was probably lying has nothing to do with that issue. She made a specific claim that can only fit into one of these two cases.

What part of that can't you get your head around? I'm pretty sure everyone else here understands the dilemma.

What's more, she was under oath so if she did, as you suggest, lie about it, you can add perjury to the list as she was under oath at the time. Even if she was shooting for plausible deniability, there is still the issue of the two and only two choices I listed.


Hmmmm, that perjury thing seems to run in the family.

Mr Moonshine wrote:- Trumps a narcissist. Hilary's a psychopath.

Trump's narcissism is very weel sustained by observable behavior. The only people calling Hillary a psychopath are pretty much tghe tinfoil hat brigade who think Alex Joines is onto something.

- T is a groper & a mysogynist, H's husband is a serial rapist & H thinks it's funny.

Neither Clinton nor Trump have ever been found guilty of rape, though both have been accused of it. Bill Clinton isn't running for president. Hillary certainly doesn't think her husband's sexual behavior is funny, according to everything she's ever said or written about the topic. Again, about the worst thing you can say about Hillary is that she married a guy like Trump -- which is certainly no ringing endorsement of a Trump presidency. I know you have a hard time seeing women as human beings, Tarquin, but I am reasonably sure that Hillary doesn't find the whole infidelity thing a big bowl of chuckles.

- T wants to build a wall, H wants to build a wall.

Err, no she doesn't.

- T is a racist, H refers to black males as super predators.

Got link for this one? I'd certainly like to see it. From a non-conspiracy theory news source, please. That said, however, even fucking Obama has used the word "thugs". I have never heard of Hillary saying that a judge should not be allowed to ajudicate a case, however, because of his ethnicity. Nor has she ever claimed that an entire group of people (absent a few exceptions) are thieves and rapists.

- T won't release his tax info, H deletes 30,000 emails after the FBI has subpoenaed them.

And Bush deleted close to a million. Your point being...?

- T wants to destroy ISIS, H wants to destroy Russia & Syria & most of the Middle east.

Trump has no problem apparently working with Russia's intelligence apparatus to try to swing an American election.

- T is incompetent, H is very sick and incompetent.

Says no doctor who has ever actually been in contact with her. And the only group of medical professionals who have said this are diagnosing via T.V. and internet ( helloooooooo professionalism!) and are the associates of a right wing political association.

- T hasn't killed anyone, H has a large body count associated with her.

this is a bit of a red herring. Trump's body count will start ticking the minute he enters into any powerful position in the U.S. government. When it comes to potential body counts, whish is what we should be worrying ab out, I'll go with the drone crowd over the man who's publically mused about using nuclear weapons on ISIS and about killing the families of ISIS members. Casting Trump as some sort of dove in comparison wqith Hillary is simply obscene.

- T is a loose canon, H is owned by the CFR and Wall Street.

At least she has some sort of accountabilty. But I wonder how big a debt Trump owes to Putin...

- T wants to support American businesses, H supports the globalists.

Ah, yes. Autarchy! It's worked so well in the past, why not call for it now?

- T has some shady business dealings, H has made millions from her Foundation selling her country out to foreign interest groups.

A foundation which has received stellar grades from pretty much every charity watch dog there is. The Clinton Foundation's BIG scandal is, oddly enough, the same as Trump's: ties with Russia. But at least Clinton isn't being fed "intelligence" by the Russian spy estanblishment.

I could go on. Trump is obviously the marginally better candidate for America as he actually likes Americans and wants to help them

Odd, given that he's never done that before. Trump Taj Mahal closed today because Trump won't reach and accomodation with his own striking workers. Please, tell me more about how the's going to take the side of the poor, downtrodden American worker.

General Apathy wrote:Not an acceptable answer.

Sure it is. Let me break it down for you:

1) She was investigated a bazzilion times and found to have done nothing illegal. Irresponsability isn't a crime. Thus, no jail.

2) The illness she alleges (which I don't buy for a hot moment) was the result of a temporary problem: to wit, a concussion. No need for hospital.

What you want is to jail or hospitalize Clinton for being, basically, a politician. Unfortunately, that's not a crime or a disease.

Sure it is. Let me break it down for you:

1) She was investigated a bazzilion times and found to have done nothing illegal. Irresponsability isn't a crime. Thus, no jail.

2) The illness she alleges (which I don't buy for a hot moment) was the result of a temporary problem: to wit, a concussion. No need for hospital.

Sorry no. Let me break it down for you. The fact the DoJ was in the tank and the director of the FBI chose to not prosecute despite their being overwhelming evidence they should does not mean she did not do anything illegal. It means politics has infected the DoJ. Comey's whole basis for dismissal of the issue was that she was careless but there was no intent. The problem is, there is no need to demonstrate intent in subpara (f) of the espionage act, which I've previously provided more than once.

I'll be more than happy to provide it again if need be.

You personally could make the case in court based just on what she has stated and meet the elements of the charge. So, yeah, jail.

The temporary problem due to the concussion still suffers from the time frame issue. As YOU previously posted, she was referring only to her briefings from the state department that she forgot. Which means she isn't claiming that she forgot the six years of briefings, handling classified, etc. while on the SASC. Which means she knowingly violated the espionage thousands of times. OR She misspoke and did lose more than six years of memory, not likely to be simply from the concussion and certainly a health issue of concern for the presidency. We don't know what you contend that it is simply the temporary loss due to the concussion is true and it hasn't been verified medically. Over six years of memory loss can't just be waived away. Who knows what else she's forgotten? Or will forget as president if there is a lingering problem? Hospital.

AND you are forgetting about her perjury.

So, yeah, it should be jail or hospital, based on what she stated under oath. And likely a perjury charge as icing on either cake.

AND it appears you STILL don't have links to support your previously shoveled shit.

General Apathy wrote:Not an acceptable answer.

If she claimed she could not remember how to handle classified material, and did NOT mean all the way back to the six years on the SASC, then she knowingly violated the espionage act thousands of times.

If she claimed she could not remember how to handle classified material, and DID mean all the way back to the six years on the SASC, then she's indicating severe memory loss and possible brain damage.

The fact she was probably lying has nothing to do with that issue. She made a specific claim that can only fit into one of these two cases.

What part of that can't you get your head around? I'm pretty sure everyone else here understands the dilemma.

What's more, she was under oath so if she did, as you suggest, lie about it, you can add perjury to the list as she was under oath at the time. Even if she was shooting for plausible deniability, there is still the issue of the two and only two choices I listed.


Hmmmm, that perjury thing seems to run in the family.

How nice of you to summarize your own post in your first paragraph.

Make the case then. Mac didn't.

I don't even bother reading all of your posts, since you are so often full of shit. Maybe a broken clock is right twice a day, but it is easier to look at an accurate clock.

Lame.

Hard to claim the post is full of shit without even reading it let alone making your case.

Which you can't. If Mac failed, you surely would do worse. I can see why you don't want to embarrass yourself by trying.

As for full of shit, I'll direct you to your broad brush claim regarding globalists = Jews in the minds of people on the right. Proof? Or just more of your LW shit?

See i do read all of yours just to see how bad the shit you are shoveling stinks, and post challenges to it. But please, by all means, run away and hide.

Real Clear Politics Clinton 86 Trump 14.