Exactly. And it must be followed by premises that are true, terms that are clear, and following the rules of logic or no conclusion can be reached. I say your conclusion is premature and its reasoning is invalid with unclear terms, premises that are assumed to be true and fallacious logic
What do you think the chances of that are? You misquoted me and got caught on it. Stop crying and argue what's left of your point.
That would be true in the scientific world having to follow straight line logic with no room for deviations or variables but whether she committed a crime or not the available information leads to the very strong superstion that either laws were broker or for sure she did not responsibly excercise good judgement in the performance of her responsibilities to protect and safeguard the material deemed secret. We are dealing with the court of public opinion and as @Winston1 says we are not on a jury and we are free to openly speculate her guilt. Even if I had been a supporter I would now have strong misgivings about her suitability to take on the massive job of president. The only other politician I can think of who was continually involved in some scandal or other for as many years was Edwin Edwards. I liked Edwards but I figured that he really was doing a lot of the things he was accused of and was slick enough to stay one step ahead of the law. I would have never defended his innocence the way you do with Hillary.
And that is the important one for the time being, he knows the dems confidence in her has been rattled. So close to getting her off the ticket.
You What a convoluted sentence. Difficult to respond to. 1. Deductive reasoning is inherent in any investigation--scientific, legal, or criminal. 2. You may suspect any damn fool thing you desire, but you cannot couch your suspicions as logic and declare "truth". 3. If no laws were broken, then nothing remains but mudslinging from the biased opposition. Whitewater and Benghazi witch hunts deja vu. 4. If poor judgment was used, it will be considered by the voters to compare with the poor judgment issues that will come out regarding the other candidates. Jindal has a ton of them. Trump has more. Biden has a few himself. 5. None of the "material deemed secret" was ever released by Hillary or was national security compromised. All of her Top Secret classified documents were handled via paper copies only. It's all about opponents trying to make a scandal out of her not wanting her private emails made public.
And this Amigo is where your Choo Choo goes off the rails, just by having it on an unsecured server is enough. When you add that they took it upon themselves to declassify the documents that is strike 2. The 3rd will soon follow.
Unsubstantiated allegations are enough for YOU. It is enough for all the people who were never going to vote for her anyway. It is a mistake for you to imagine that everybody thinks like you and shares your likes and dislikes. Most people don't, José.
The chances of her being in court or plea bargaining are getting better and better. If you're so confident why don't you double up @shane0911 s bet with me. That bourbon looks pretty good amigo. You got caught trying to use legal standards to make a point in the debate....standards that mean nothing in debate. Why don't you address the obvious points of her continuing and shifting lies about the emails? Why don't you address the actions of her aides notably Huma Abidin working for State and the Clinton Foundation which is against the rules and maybe law? Why don't you address the obvious significant erosion in her standing both in the national election and primaries. Most of all why don't you address the reality that this whole issue has been driven by the IGs of Intelligence and State, and now the FBI and a Federal judge NOT the Republican Party? Quit trying to make useless debating points and make a real argument.
Looks like it's enough for a lot of people who were going to vote for her but have changed their minds. And there are more and more every day getting off the Hilltanic.
So say you. Big deal. No I use logical standards and you can't handle it, so you cry foul. I have been doing this all along. Try to pay better attention. I'm not going to repeat myself endlessly. What rules and what does it have to do with Hillary's emails? Why don't you just argue your own point? If I have something to say, I'll say it. Here you are trying to deflect again and shifting the subject. Abidin left the State Department to become a consultant to State. It happens all the time. You want me to argue your side of the debate. Seriously? Tell you what. I'll address what I want to and you address what you want to. You do anyway. You still refuse to admit that she is not under criminal investigation. I have been, you just don't like it. Tough shit. You are now simply repeating old arguments because you got nothing new. Not one of the agencies you list is investigating Hillary Clinton, they are investigating email security and have issued no findings. I have pointed this out repeatedly but you just ignore it and make the same disproven statements. Come back when you have something to add.
