The Durham Report and The Exposition of The Libbies

[Rebound]

26 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Here's an even better idea. Stick to spell checking. At least you're OK at that.

This is your way of admitting you’re wrong but you don’t want to admit it.

I didn’t misspell anything. I repeated your mistake. That’s why I put it in quotes.  
 

Edited May 24, 2023 by Rebound

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

This is your way of admitting you’re wrong but you don’t want to admit it.

I didn’t misspell anything. I repeated your mistake. That’s why I put it in quotes.  
 

If you insist on asking dumb-ass questions like "What deal" you will continue to show off your ignorance.

[Rebound]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

If you insist on asking dumb-ass questions like "What deal" you will continue to show off your ignorance.

YOU are the one that says there is a deal to be had. You and Trump. 
 

What “deal” did Trump propose to resolve Russia’s conquest of the Crimea?  None. If Trump didn’t resolve that, what makes anyone think he would resolve the Ukraine War?  
 

Show us the map of what Russia gets and what Ukraine gets and explain why they’ll accept it.  
 

If Russia invaded Alaska, I’ll tell you exactly the US position: We will not give him one inch of US territory.

[robosmith]

On 5/23/2023 at 11:10 AM, CdnFox said:

Well how about we start with the FBI's top lawyer?

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/430881-fbis-top-lawyer-believed-hillary-clinton-should-face-charges-but-was/

https://neonnettle.com/news/6784-lisa-page-doj-blocked-fbi-from-charging-hillary-clinton-with-gross-negligence-

https://redstate.com/elizabeth-vaughn/2019/02/21/fbis-former-top-lawyer-james-baker-thought-hillary-clinton-faced-charges-end-n101595

So until they were forced to drop it by the DOJ - that would be the SAME people clinton ran across the tarmac to talk to, all the FBI lawyers thought she should be charged.

Hmmmm.

I've seen many other lawyers weigh in on it and they were all of the same opinion.

But it's STRANGE how YOU never have any CITES to back up YOUR OPINION LOL -  sorry kiddo you lose this one

 

The FBI are right wing conspiracy lawyers?

He explained the DOJ told him not to.  And lawyers agree that was a highly questionable decision.

Comey explained that NO ONE had ever been charged for Hillary's UNINTENTIONAL MIS-STORAGE of UNMARKED classified info.

And your cite explains Baker's FINAL OPINION on the matter where he agreed that Hillary SHOULD NOT be charged. Duh.

Quote

“So, I had that belief initially after reviewing, you know, a large binder of her emails that had classified information in them,” he said. “And I discussed it internally with a number of different folks, and eventually became persuaded that charging her was not appropriate because we could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that — we, the government, could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that — she had the intent necessary to violate (the law).”

 

 

[robosmith]

On 5/23/2023 at 12:23 PM, Nationalist said:

What's ridiculous is that you consistently make incorrect "assumptions".

Do you understand how irrelevant that is?

What charges? Lets start with purgery and work our way up...shall we?

You mean "perjury"? For saying WHAT? And why didn't Trump's DoJ charge him?

You got BUPKIS.

[robosmith]

13 hours ago, Nationalist said:

I'm on the side of peace. I think the Russians and Ukrainians need to sit down and make a peace deal. I also think NATO needs to stay out of it.

I know this concept is beyond your compression but...that's your problem.

I know ALL CONCEPTS are beyond YOUR "compression." LMAO

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Comey explained that NO ONE had ever been charged for Hillary's UNINTENTIONAL MIS-STORAGE of UNMARKED classified info.

No he didn't.  He said she committed a serious crime but they didn't think they could prove mens rea.

And you didn't answer the question - the FBI's top lawyers all thought the charges were totally appropriate till they got shot down by the woman whom bill met across the tarmac.

7 minutes ago, robosmith said:

And your cite explains Baker's FINAL OPINION on the matter where he agreed that Hillary SHOULD NOT be charged. Duh.

It explains he though she should be charged 'right up till the end' - and that he basically just gave up arguing.

It also correctly notes that Comey's explanation was that he couldn't prove mens rea. -  but that the crime DOES NOT REQUIRE mens rea .

"But the applicable statute does not consider intent. The full statute, 18 U.S.C. § 793(f), can be read here. “Section 793(f) makes it a felony for any person “entrusted with… information relating to the national defense” to allow that information to be “removed from its proper place of custody” through “gross negligence.”

The FBI’s failure to prosecute Hillary Clinton needs to be revisited by the Department of Justice. It’s obvious that her exoneration was a foregone conclusion. The FBI just had to make it appear as if they had conducted an honest investigation."

Three strikes kiddo - yer out

Edited May 25, 2023 by CdnFox

[robosmith]

27 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

No he didn't.  He said she committed a serious crime but they didn't think they could prove mens rea.

And you didn't answer the question - the FBI's top lawyers all thought the charges were totally appropriate till they got shot down by the woman whom bill met across the tarmac.

It explains he though she should be charged 'right up till the end' - and that he basically just gave up arguing.

It also correctly notes that Comey's explanation was that he couldn't prove mens rea. -  but that the crime DOES NOT REQUIRE mens rea .

Three strikes kiddo - yer out

Nope. You ARE OUT.

This is what Comey CONCLUDED.

Quote

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

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.

 

[Nationalist]

12 hours ago, Rebound said:

YOU are the one that says there is a deal to be had. You and Trump. 
 

What “deal” did Trump propose to resolve Russia’s conquest of the Crimea?  None. If Trump didn’t resolve that, what makes anyone think he would resolve the Ukraine War?  
 

Show us the map of what Russia gets and what Ukraine gets and explain why they’ll accept it.  
 

If Russia invaded Alaska, I’ll tell you exactly the US position: We will not give him one inch of US territory.

There is. I would say that Russia keeps Crimea and those eastern provinces that, BTW, voted for independence from Ukraine, and Ukraine keeps the rest.

The only question is, does Russia want Odessa as well?

[Nationalist]

6 hours ago, robosmith said:

You mean "perjury"? For saying WHAT? And why didn't Trump's DoJ charge him?

You got BUPKIS.

Wrong. There are now millions and millions of people in the USA and abroad, who now know how corrupt the justice system is.

[Nationalist]

6 hours ago, robosmith said:

I know ALL CONCEPTS are beyond YOUR "compression." LMAO

No you don't. You know one thing and one thing only.

Hatred.

[CdnFox]

8 hours ago, robosmith said:

Nope. You ARE OUT.

LOL - awwww look at you, you've gained the intellectual skills of a parrot   I believe that makes you as smart as a 3 year old now

8 hours ago, robosmith said:

This is what Comey CONCLUDED.

 

Yes - and most professional lawyers disagreed with him.  And the entire FBI team disagreed with him to and argued furiously until the DOJ told them to shut up and suck it up.

That'd be the same DOJ who's boss Clintion ran across the tarmac to go have a chat with.

As i've shown - most professionals disagreed with comey. And the prevelant legal opinion is that there IS no intent required for that crime, period.

And nobody argues that the crime didn't happen - it did and that's accepted fact by both sides.

So there you go kiddo   I proved my case - do you have some sort of evidence to show that most lawyers don't disagree with that decision?

[Rebound]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

There is. I would say that Russia keeps Crimea and those eastern provinces that, BTW, voted for independence from Ukraine, and Ukraine keeps the rest.

The only question is, does Russia want Odessa as well?

Explain how Putin is entitled to simply seize the land of a sovereign nation.  
 

“Gee, Vlad, want Odessa, too? How about if we throw in Ohio? Want that, too?”

Americans learned that just because a state or region votes to secede, it does not get to secede.  

Edited May 25, 2023 by Rebound

[robosmith]

18 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Blah, blah, blah, DRIVEL.

Comey was given the AUTHORITY to decide after the AG recused herself, so that's the ONLY THING that MATTERS.

Like I said, Comey KNOWS the LAW and explained it well. You got NOTHING from the LAW to refute that.

Even Baker was convinced. Esp NOT an EXAMPLE which refutes what Comey said. Duh.

Edited May 26, 2023 by robosmith

[CdnFox]

8 hours ago, robosmith said:

Simp simp simp lie deflect deflect

it doesn't matter what comey was given.

The legal community including the fbi's own people knew it was wrong and can clearly articulate why.

She got off because her husband ran across the tarmac to pressure the DOJ into making the FBI do what Clinton wanted - not for legal reasons.

Sorry kiddo - can't lie your way out of that.