Why It Is Mathematically Impossible for Trump to win the White House

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by Tiger in NC, Mar 18, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Tiger in NC

    Tiger in NC There's a sucker born everyday...

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2011
    Messages:
    6,532
    Likes Received:
    1,806
  2. LSUpride123

    LSUpride123 PureBlood

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    33,700
    Likes Received:
    16,641
  3. LSUpride123

    LSUpride123 PureBlood

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    33,700
    Likes Received:
    16,641
    I mean, you and the other liberals can sit there and keep saying no laws were broke. Its false. Been proven false.

    The real issue is HRC is to big to prosecute. Kind of like Bill. They declined to prosecute. Didn't make him lying under oath any less illegal.
     
  4. LSUpride123

    LSUpride123 PureBlood

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    33,700
    Likes Received:
    16,641
    LSUTiga likes this.
  5. LSUTiga

    LSUTiga TF Pubic Relations

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Messages:
    32,743
    Likes Received:
    11,273
    Liar.
    Thanks for the link 123
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...a-found-guilty-removal-and-retention-classifi

    Sure is. Clarity isn't the problem. Following it seems to be.
     
    LSUpride123 likes this.
  6. LSUTiga

    LSUTiga TF Pubic Relations

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Messages:
    32,743
    Likes Received:
    11,273
    Hilary's an unconvicted felon. That should concern you more.
     
  7. tirk

    tirk im the lyrical jessie james

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    47,369
    Likes Received:
    21,536
    What. Thats why I added his quote. Are you being intentionally obstinate or simply need everything written out and explained like a 3rd grader. Comey said or implied rather, her actions would likely result in a different outcome for someone else. She's the elite and untouchable.
     
  8. LSUpride123

    LSUpride123 PureBlood

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    33,700
    Likes Received:
    16,641
    Yes, you must spell it out for these people.
     
  9. Winston1

    Winston1 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    Messages:
    12,048
    Likes Received:
    7,423
    Not exactly. There is a big difference in determining if a suspect broke a law and whether there was enough evidence to take to court.
    Comey's statement detailed several laws the investigation believe we're broken. What he said was that it couldn't find enough proof of malicious intent. He also said they had charged and convicted lower level government employees of the same or less evidence. The only statement she can take as positive is the last one. His statement is chapter and verse a call that she is both too incompetent and too corrupt to be president.
    Basically she was called out but received a pass because of who she is and where we are in the election cycle. If you don't get that from Comey's presser you are either stupid or so true a believer you care nothing for the facts.

    http://reason.com/blog/2016/07/05/fbi-director-recommends-against-prosecut
     
  10. sunnyjim

    sunnyjim Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2006
    Messages:
    569
    Likes Received:
    171
    Save your insults for your boyfriend, I don't care. I'll add some of his quotes, too.

    "we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct."

    "we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of the classified information"

    "our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. In looking back at our investigations, into the mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts."

    "All the cases prosecuted involve some combination of clearly intentional or willful mishandling of classified information or vast quantities of information exposed in such a way to support an inference of intentional misconduct or indications of disloyalty to the United States or an obstruction of justice. But we do not see those things here."
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page