Supporting Trump, now a religion?

[Falvlun]

When they get some proof, that is the time to mention impeachment, not before.

Because of their hatred for Trump Some of the Dems, have jumped the gun?

We know Clinton broke the law, should that also be investigated.

There is evidence already, including Trump's own words. But I agree that we should wait until the results of the investigation.

Clinton was investigated. It was found that she broke the law, but that there was nothing to prosecute as intent couldn't be proven and nothing bad ended up happening because of it. I'm not sure how you missed that. It was pretty big in the news only a year ago.

 

[Revoltingest]

There is evidence already, including Trump's own words. But I agree that we should wait until the results of the investigation.

Clinton was investigated. It was found that she broke the law, but that there was nothing to prosecute as intent couldn't be proven and nothing bad ended up happening because of it. I'm not sure how you missed that. It was pretty big in the news only a year ago.

Intent isn't necessary for prosecution.
It's not even a defense.
But prosecutors have a lot of discretion.
(I know one personally. One does not want to get on his s*** list.)
The decision to not prosecute her looks like a political one.
As investigations conclude, this could benefit Trump too.

 

[Falvlun]

Intent isn't necessary for prosecution.
It's not even a defense.
But prosecutors have a lot of discretion.
(I know one personally. One does not want to get on his s*** list.)
The decision to not prosecute her looks like a political one.
As investigations conclude, this could benefit Trump too.

Here's the FBI's recommendation after their extensive investigation:

"So that’s what we found. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice:

In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case."

There are multiple reasons given, including intent, to support their recommendation to not prosecute. Was the FBI being political? What evidence is there for that, and on what basis do you reject the FBI's recommendation?

Ultimately, it appears that Clinton's violations just weren't all that serious. Note the punishment that Comey mentions for similar violations: security or administrative sanctions. Not jail time. Not death. Heck, Patreus, who intentionally shared confidential information, was just fined and put on probation.

Now, if intent were proven, if the server had been hacked or the information otherwise leaked, if American lives were jeopardized or lost, the severity of her misjudgment would have been greater and the need to prosecute likely higher.

Politics may have been at play-- but they were certainly not the only factor in the decision to not prosecute. That was also based in the evidence, the lack of severity of the violation, and the lack of adverse effects from the violation.

 

[omega2xx]

There is evidence already, including Trump's own words. But I agree that we should wait until the results of the investigation.

Accusations are not evidence.

Clinton was investigated. It was found that she broke the law, but that there was nothing to prosecute as intent couldn't be proven and nothing bad ended up happening because of it. I'm not sure how you missed that. It was pretty big in the news only a year ago.

"No intent" is Comey bolony. Intent can't be determined. If I kill someone but didn't intend to, I am still guilty and will be prosecuted. Anyone in government as long as she was knows the rules. She deliberately broke the rules because she thought her position made her bullet proof.

 

[Falvlun]

Accusations are not evidence.

There is evidence. Trump has stated that he fired Comey, at least in part, because of the Russian investigation. (Lester Holt interview and Twitter)

There is also the Flynn evidence: we know that he had an inappropriate relationship with the Russians, and that the Trump administration was told this, but ignored those warnings.

There is also a lot of strange statements from Trump and ties between Russia and other members of his campaign team (manafort, kushner, carter). This is circumstantial, but warrants a closer look. which is precisely why there are multiple governmental investigations going on.

"No intent" is Comey bolony. Intent can't be determined. If I kill someone but didn't intend to, I am still guilty and will be prosecuted. Anyone in government as long as she was knows the rules. She deliberately broke the rules because she thought her position made her bullet proof.

So, according to you, there is only one type of murder. First degree, second degree, third degree, manslaugter, none of those exist. Intent certainly changes the charges brought and the severity of the crime. You are also ignoring the other reasons given: no harm was done and the violation itself was pretty minor.

Are you saying that comey could have stood up there and lied about the results of the investigation? You don't think that there wouldn't have been any other FBI agent that would have went to the DOJ and said "Comey is wrong, here's what we really have." Furthermore, Comey just gave the FBI's recommendation. The DOJ was free to ignore that recommendation and still prosecute if they thought there was actually a case. But they didn't.

I also like how you act as if we have zero evidence for Trump, but are more than happy to use "I think she must have intended it, therefore she did intend it" as evidence of Clinton's guilt, even when an extensive FBI investigation says you're wrong.

 

[omega2xx]

There is evidence. Trump has stated that he fired Comey, at least in part, because of the Russian investigation. (Lester Holt interview and Twitter)

There is also the Flynn evidence: we know that he had an inappropriate relationship with the Russians, and that the Trump administration was told this, but ignored those warnings.

There is also a lot of strange statements from Trump and ties between Russia and other members of his campaign team (manafort, kushner, carter). This is circumstantial, but warrants a closer look. which is precisely why there are multiple governmental investigations going on.

Nothing has been proven.

So, according to you, there is only one type of murder. First degree, second degree, third degree, manslaugter, none of those exist. Intent certainly changes the charges brought and the severity of the crime. You are also ignoring the other reasons given: no harm was done and the violation itself was pretty minor.

According to the Bible the only thing classified as murder, is when it is premediated. Others killing are not given the death penalty. IMO, unless the killer confesses his intent, intent can't be proved. The law does not, as I understand it, does not mention harm to be done.

Are you saying that comey could have stood up there and lied about the results of the investigation? You don't think that there wouldn't have been any other FBI agent that would have went to the DOJ and said "Comey is wrong, here's what we really have." Furthermore, Comey just gave the FBI's recommendation. The DOJ was free to ignore that recommendation and still prosecute if they thought there was actually a case. But they didn't.

All I am saying is that intent can't be known.

I also like how you act as if we have zero evidence for Trump, but are more than happy to use "I think she must have intended it, therefore she did intend it" as evidence of Clinton's guilt, even when an extensive FBI investigation says you're wrong.

I would like to see you post the verified evidence that Trump has broken some laws.

 

[Falvlun]

Nothing has been proven.

I didn't say it had been. I gave evidence which you claimed didn't exist.

According to the Bible the only thing classified as murder, is when it is premediated. Others killing are not given the death penalty. IMO, unless the killer confesses his intent, intent can't be proved. The law does not, as I understand it, does not mention harm to be done.
All I am saying is that intent can't be known.

The Bible is not the basis for which we would determine if Hilary should be prosecuted or found guilty so it is irrelevant.

Your opinion also does not matter. I'm sure that the head of the FBI has a better grasp of the law than you do, and even if he had been wrong, there would have been many other people to correct him.

I would like to see you post the verified evidence that Trump has broken some laws.

I already gave evidence that has caused concern, which has spurred multiple investigations. Until the investigations are done, we won't know for sure. That does not mean we cannot, or should not, consider the reasons why so many people are concerned.

On the other hand, we do have the completed investigation of Clinton, with the verified evidence and conclusion that shows that there wasn't even enough to prosecute. Yet you claim to know better based on... your opinions and the Bible, I guess. Your double standard is rather evident.

 

[omega2xx]

I didn't say it had been. I gave evidence which you claimed didn't exist.

Accusations are not evidence. It becomes evidene if is proven.

The Bible is not the basis for which we would determine if Hilary should be prosecuted or found guilty so it is irrelevant.

The principle stated in the Bible is.

Your opinion also does not matter. I'm sure that the head of the FBI has a better grasp of the law than you do, and even if he had been wrong, there would have been many other people to correct him.

Knowing the law does not mean they follow it especially in politics and her are many who know the law who says she did break it and should be prosecuted.

I already gave evidence that has caused concern, which has spurred multiple investigations. Until the investigations are done, we won't know for sure. That does not mean we cannot, or should not, consider the reasons why so many people are concerned.

Accusations are not evidence.

On the other hand, we do have the completed investigation of Clinton, with the verified evidence and conclusion that shows that there wasn't even enough to prosecute. Yet you claim to know better based on... your opinions and the Bible, I guess. Your double standard is rather evident.

We have a political hack who changed his mind.

 

[Falvlun]

Accusations are not evidence. It becomes evidene if is proven.

Ok, so you are ignoring the evidence I gave, which to recap, was Trump's on words (both written and video) that said that he fired Comey at least in par due to the Russian investigation, and the Flynn issue, which is corroborated by facts (e.g. We know he had inappropriate Russian conversations, and we know that Trump and his administration were made aware that Flynn had security issues.)

None of that is an accusation. It is documented fact.

Also, you need evidence before you can prove something. If, as you claim, we can't have evidence until after something is proven, how the heck are you supposed to prove it in the first place?

The principle stated in the Bible is.

Is what? The Bible is not relevant to determining what is or is not legal or what actions should be prosecuted in the United States of America.

Knowing the law does not mean they follow it especially in politics and her are many who know the law who says she did break it and should be prosecuted.

K.

Where's your evidence that a) she ought to be prosecuted and b) that Comey acted illegally or wrongly or politically. You know, since you are so anti-accusations without evidence.

Accusations are not evidence.

I didn't say they were. Why don't you actually read what I wrote.

We have a political hack who changed his mind.

Accusations are not evidence.

And this ignores what I've said twice:
Let's say you are right: Comey was wrong.

Why didn't nobody else in the FBI say that Comey is compromised and hat he is lying about the results of the investigation?

And, why did nobody prosecute Clinton? As was stated by Comey multiple times, it is not the FBI's decision; they only made a recommendation. That recommendation could have been ignored, especially if there were evidence that Comey was wrong or politically compromised.