Donald Trump Jr. Mea Culpa to NYT Investigative Report - LOVE IT!

[Lewdog]

Please quote me where I said I was a lawyer dipshit. Part of getting my degree it was required to take law classes. I know that is hard for you to understand.

In other words, if you started giving out legal advice for money you would be arrested.

Does that just about sum it up?

If I was going out representing myself as an attorney and taking money for it? Yes. If I talk about law on an internet forum and quote the truth? Nope.

So I'm still waiting for you to quote where I said I was a lawyer.

You haven't quoted any truth, numskull. You've have pontificated and told us to believe you because you're supposedly an authority. However, the legal profession says you aren't an authority.

Even if I were a lawyer you wouldn't listen.

Fact is, I AM more educated in law than you are. Comey IS a lawyer, was the top law enforcement officer in the country, and Director of the FBI, and told you and all the other idiots in this country that he couldn't find the intent needed to suggest filing charges against Clinton. You still don't listen.

There are plenty of prosecutors that said Clinton should be prosecuted. They are all layers. Comey is a political hack who would sell his own mother for political power.

Bottom line: the statute doesn't require intent. It only requires gross negligence.

Wrong.

 

[bripat9643]

In other words, if you started giving out legal advice for money you would be arrested.

Does that just about sum it up?

If I was going out representing myself as an attorney and taking money for it? Yes. If I talk about law on an internet forum and quote the truth? Nope.

So I'm still waiting for you to quote where I said I was a lawyer.

You haven't quoted any truth, numskull. You've have pontificated and told us to believe you because you're supposedly an authority. However, the legal profession says you aren't an authority.

Even if I were a lawyer you wouldn't listen.

Fact is, I AM more educated in law than you are. Comey IS a lawyer, was the top law enforcement officer in the country, and Director of the FBI, and told you and all the other idiots in this country that he couldn't find the intent needed to suggest filing charges against Clinton. You still don't listen.

There are plenty of prosecutors that said Clinton should be prosecuted. They are all layers. Comey is a political hack who would sell his own mother for political power.

Bottom line: the statute doesn't require intent. It only requires gross negligence.

Wrong.

You're wrong.

 

[Lewdog]

If I was going out representing myself as an attorney and taking money for it? Yes. If I talk about law on an internet forum and quote the truth? Nope.

So I'm still waiting for you to quote where I said I was a lawyer.

You haven't quoted any truth, numskull. You've have pontificated and told us to believe you because you're supposedly an authority. However, the legal profession says you aren't an authority.

Even if I were a lawyer you wouldn't listen.

Fact is, I AM more educated in law than you are. Comey IS a lawyer, was the top law enforcement officer in the country, and Director of the FBI, and told you and all the other idiots in this country that he couldn't find the intent needed to suggest filing charges against Clinton. You still don't listen.

There are plenty of prosecutors that said Clinton should be prosecuted. They are all layers. Comey is a political hack who would sell his own mother for political power.

Bottom line: the statute doesn't require intent. It only requires gross negligence.

Wrong.

You're wrong.

Obviously I'm not. Charges weren't filed against Clinton. /argument

 

[bripat9643]

You haven't quoted any truth, numskull. You've have pontificated and told us to believe you because you're supposedly an authority. However, the legal profession says you aren't an authority.

Even if I were a lawyer you wouldn't listen.

Fact is, I AM more educated in law than you are. Comey IS a lawyer, was the top law enforcement officer in the country, and Director of the FBI, and told you and all the other idiots in this country that he couldn't find the intent needed to suggest filing charges against Clinton. You still don't listen.

There are plenty of prosecutors that said Clinton should be prosecuted. They are all layers. Comey is a political hack who would sell his own mother for political power.

Bottom line: the statute doesn't require intent. It only requires gross negligence.

Wrong.

You're wrong.

Obviously I'm not. Charges weren't filed against Clinton. /argument

All that proves is that Comey is a hack. Your arguments all resolve to the same thing, that we should accept the word of Comey or yourself. Yet, you have given us no reason to do so. You word isn't worth a pile of chicken shit, and neither is Comey's.

 

[Lewdog]

Even if I were a lawyer you wouldn't listen.

Fact is, I AM more educated in law than you are. Comey IS a lawyer, was the top law enforcement officer in the country, and Director of the FBI, and told you and all the other idiots in this country that he couldn't find the intent needed to suggest filing charges against Clinton. You still don't listen.

There are plenty of prosecutors that said Clinton should be prosecuted. They are all layers. Comey is a political hack who would sell his own mother for political power.

Bottom line: the statute doesn't require intent. It only requires gross negligence.

Wrong.

You're wrong.

Obviously I'm not. Charges weren't filed against Clinton. /argument

All that proves is that Comey is a hack. Your arguments all resolve to the same thing, that we should accept the word of Comey or yourself. Yet, you have given us no reason to do so. You word isn't worth a pile of chicken shit, and neither is Comey's.

And the word of an engineer that got his degree out of a cracker jack box, knows the law better.

 

[bripat9643]

There are plenty of prosecutors that said Clinton should be prosecuted. They are all layers. Comey is a political hack who would sell his own mother for political power.

Bottom line: the statute doesn't require intent. It only requires gross negligence.

Wrong.

You're wrong.

Obviously I'm not. Charges weren't filed against Clinton. /argument

All that proves is that Comey is a hack. Your arguments all resolve to the same thing, that we should accept the word of Comey or yourself. Yet, you have given us no reason to do so. You word isn't worth a pile of chicken shit, and neither is Comey's.

And the word of an engineer that got his degree out of a cracker jack box, knows the law better.

I'm not asking anyone to take my word on it. The law is available on the internet for anyone to read. We don't need some Obama appointed hack or some snowflake to tell us what it says.

 

[Oldstyle]

Trump team met with Russian lawyer during campaign
Updated 4:04 PM ET, Sun July 9, 2017


Trump team met with Russian lawyer during campaign - CNNPolitics.com


Hahahahaha......LOVE IT.
The Trumps are up to their eyebrows in Commies!

View attachment 137919

Every freaking day it's something new with the ruling family.

Hopefully this dog and pony show comes to an end soon.

You aren't hoping for that at all. You want it to drag on as long as possible.

Who do you think you're fooling?

Nah. The Trump posse is too freaking dangerous even with the gop Congress doing there best to keep the head nitwit in check.

I'd take a qualified, intelligent Democrat or Republican over this idiot in a heartbeat.

I hate to break this to you, VOR...but nobody really cares what you would "take"!

Good luck on finding a "qualified, intelligent Democrat" by the way! That party is loaded with ancient, career politicians with no new ideas.

Let me guess. You have "gop forever" tattooed on your forehead, right? LOL.

Nothing lasts forever, VOR...even Donald Trump's presidency! Instead of obsessing about how dangerous Trump is because he wants to change the Washington culture...perhaps you might want to ask yourself why that's a bad thing?

 

[Oldstyle]

That doesn't make you a lawyer, bonehead.

Please quote me where I said I was a lawyer dipshit. Part of getting my degree it was required to take law classes. I know that is hard for you to understand.

In other words, if you started giving out legal advice for money you would be arrested.

Does that just about sum it up?

If I was going out representing myself as an attorney and taking money for it? Yes. If I talk about law on an internet forum and quote the truth? Nope.

So I'm still waiting for you to quote where I said I was a lawyer.

You haven't quoted any truth, numskull. You've have pontificated and told us to believe you because you're supposedly an authority. However, the legal profession says you aren't an authority.

Even if I were a lawyer you wouldn't listen.

Fact is, I AM more educated in law than you are. Comey IS a lawyer, was the top law enforcement officer in the country, and Director of the FBI, and told you and all the other idiots in this country that he couldn't find the intent needed to suggest filing charges against Clinton. You still don't listen.

Are you claiming that intent needs to be present before bringing charges against Clinton? If you really WERE educated in the law then you'd know that isn't the case at all.

 

[Lakhota]

Treason obviously runs deep in the Trump family.

 

[Lewdog]

Please quote me where I said I was a lawyer dipshit. Part of getting my degree it was required to take law classes. I know that is hard for you to understand.

In other words, if you started giving out legal advice for money you would be arrested.

Does that just about sum it up?

If I was going out representing myself as an attorney and taking money for it? Yes. If I talk about law on an internet forum and quote the truth? Nope.

So I'm still waiting for you to quote where I said I was a lawyer.

You haven't quoted any truth, numskull. You've have pontificated and told us to believe you because you're supposedly an authority. However, the legal profession says you aren't an authority.

Even if I were a lawyer you wouldn't listen.

Fact is, I AM more educated in law than you are. Comey IS a lawyer, was the top law enforcement officer in the country, and Director of the FBI, and told you and all the other idiots in this country that he couldn't find the intent needed to suggest filing charges against Clinton. You still don't listen.

Are you claiming that intent needs to be present before bringing charges against Clinton? If you really WERE educated in the law then you'd know that isn't the case at all.

No... like Comey said, he couldn't find intent, therefor he wasn't recommending charges against Clinton. Why charge her if you can't prove intent? It would be a waste of time, money, and resources.

 

[bripat9643]

Treason obviously runs deep in the Trump family.

Mental retardation runs deep in yours. It's a wonder you're able to reproduce at all.

 

[bripat9643]

In other words, if you started giving out legal advice for money you would be arrested.

Does that just about sum it up?

If I was going out representing myself as an attorney and taking money for it? Yes. If I talk about law on an internet forum and quote the truth? Nope.

So I'm still waiting for you to quote where I said I was a lawyer.

You haven't quoted any truth, numskull. You've have pontificated and told us to believe you because you're supposedly an authority. However, the legal profession says you aren't an authority.

Even if I were a lawyer you wouldn't listen.

Fact is, I AM more educated in law than you are. Comey IS a lawyer, was the top law enforcement officer in the country, and Director of the FBI, and told you and all the other idiots in this country that he couldn't find the intent needed to suggest filing charges against Clinton. You still don't listen.

Are you claiming that intent needs to be present before bringing charges against Clinton? If you really WERE educated in the law then you'd know that isn't the case at all.

No... like Comey said, he couldn't find intent, therefor he wasn't recommending charges against Clinton. Why charge her if you can't prove intent? It would be a waste of time, money, and resources.

In other words, you're claiming exactly what he said you were claiming, and it's obvious bullshit.

 

[Sundance508]

In other words, if you started giving out legal advice for money you would be arrested.

Does that just about sum it up?

If I was going out representing myself as an attorney and taking money for it? Yes. If I talk about law on an internet forum and quote the truth? Nope.

So I'm still waiting for you to quote where I said I was a lawyer.

You haven't quoted any truth, numskull. You've have pontificated and told us to believe you because you're supposedly an authority. However, the legal profession says you aren't an authority.

Even if I were a lawyer you wouldn't listen.

Fact is, I AM more educated in law than you are. Comey IS a lawyer, was the top law enforcement officer in the country, and Director of the FBI, and told you and all the other idiots in this country that he couldn't find the intent needed to suggest filing charges against Clinton. You still don't listen.

Are you claiming that intent needs to be present before bringing charges against Clinton? If you really WERE educated in the law then you'd know that isn't the case at all.

No... like Comey said, he couldn't find intent, therefor he wasn't recommending charges against Clinton. Why charge her if you can't prove intent? It would be a waste of time, money, and resources.

Hillary Rodham Clinton committed a felony. That is apparent from the facts and in the plain-language of the federal statute that prohibits "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information", 18 U.S. Code § 793(e) and (f). This offense carries a potential penalty of ten years imprisonment.

It's called a prima facie case: clear on the basis of known facts.

It's up to prosecutorial discretion by the US Attorney as to what charges may be filed and when. Nonetheless, Mrs. Clinton is clearly chargeable for violation of federal law.

 

[Iceweasel]

Major in Criminal Justice is not a law degree. You aren't any kind of authority on this subject.

I guarantee I took more law classes than you ever have.

That doesn't make you a lawyer, bonehead.

Please quote me where I said I was a lawyer dipshit. Part of getting my degree it was required to take law classes. I know that is hard for you to understand.

In other words, if you started giving out legal advice for money you would be arrested.

Does that just about sum it up?

If I was going out representing myself as an attorney and taking money for it? Yes. If I talk about law on an internet forum and quote the truth? Nope.

So I'm still waiting for you to quote where I said I was a lawyer.

You run your yap about it quite a bit and so far you've always been wrong. You threw your money away.

 

[Lewdog]

If I was going out representing myself as an attorney and taking money for it? Yes. If I talk about law on an internet forum and quote the truth? Nope.

So I'm still waiting for you to quote where I said I was a lawyer.

You haven't quoted any truth, numskull. You've have pontificated and told us to believe you because you're supposedly an authority. However, the legal profession says you aren't an authority.

Even if I were a lawyer you wouldn't listen.

Fact is, I AM more educated in law than you are. Comey IS a lawyer, was the top law enforcement officer in the country, and Director of the FBI, and told you and all the other idiots in this country that he couldn't find the intent needed to suggest filing charges against Clinton. You still don't listen.

Are you claiming that intent needs to be present before bringing charges against Clinton? If you really WERE educated in the law then you'd know that isn't the case at all.

No... like Comey said, he couldn't find intent, therefor he wasn't recommending charges against Clinton. Why charge her if you can't prove intent? It would be a waste of time, money, and resources.

Hillary Rodham Clinton committed a felony. That is apparent from the facts and in the plain-language of the federal statute that prohibits "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information", 18 U.S. Code § 793(e) and (f). This offense carries a potential penalty of ten years imprisonment.

It's called a prima facie case: clear on the basis of known facts.

It's up to prosecutorial discretion by the US Attorney as to what charges may be filed and when. Nonetheless, Mrs. Clinton is clearly chargeable for violation of federal law.

Comey was tasked with doing an investigation and RECOMMENDING if charges be filed. He said there was no clear cut evidence of INTENT and that he was not recommending to the AG to file charges.

You can argue this until the cows come home but this is FACT and those people know a whole hell of a lot more about the case and law than you do.

When I first came to this forum I argued with every Clinton supporter EVERY single day because I KNOW Clinton is crooked and dirty. She should be in jail for Benghazi and I think she should be in trouble for her email mess, BUT just as in science, with law you need to follow the rules and make decisions based on the facts and evidence and not on emotion. If you go around making decisions based on bias and emotion you are not going to make it very far. Comey didn't get to where he was by making rash decisions. He worked under both political parties, is well educated, and held the trust of MANY MANY people from both sides of the isle.

So you can argue this until you are blue in the face but you are wrong. Every single one of you in this thread that say he should have recommended charges without proper evidence of intent are wrong, and you would have just cost the country a shit load of money for nothing.

 

[Lewdog]

I guarantee I took more law classes than you ever have.

That doesn't make you a lawyer, bonehead.

Please quote me where I said I was a lawyer dipshit. Part of getting my degree it was required to take law classes. I know that is hard for you to understand.

In other words, if you started giving out legal advice for money you would be arrested.

Does that just about sum it up?

If I was going out representing myself as an attorney and taking money for it? Yes. If I talk about law on an internet forum and quote the truth? Nope.

So I'm still waiting for you to quote where I said I was a lawyer.

You run your yap about it quite a bit and so far you've always been wrong. You threw your money away.

Man it must make you jealous that you think you know everything about law because of being a forum member on some law enforcement site, and here I am graduated Summa Cum Laude from one of the top Criminal Justice Universities in the country with a degree in Criminal Justice and a Minor in Police Studies, and I have to point out every time you are wrong. I just ignored you and quit replying to you for so long... but you still keep replying to my posts and trying to talk shit. Go look up what Summa Cum Laude means and get back with me.

Maybe one day you'll get over your jealousy and you can start to learn some stuff from my posts. Now I'll go back to ignoring all your posts.

 

[Sundance508]

Why Comey was wrong: As the N.Y. Times tells it, the Justice Department and the FBI knew that to charge Clinton with a crime, it would not be enough to prove she had been “sloppy or careless”; instead, “they needed evidence showing that she knowingly received classified information or set up her server for that purpose.” As I have contended before, this claim is specious on multiple levels. Subsection (f) of the pertinent statute (the Espionage Act, codified at Section 793 of Title 18, U.S. Code) makes it a felony to mishandle classified information “through gross negligence” — i.e., proving Clinton was sloppy or careless (or “extremely careless,” to use Comey’s own description) could have been sufficient. But beyond that, Clinton willfully set up a private network for the systematic handling of her State Department-related communications, in violation of federal record-keeping requirements of which she was well aware, and under circumstances in which she (a former senator who served for years on the intelligence Armed Services committee) was a sophisticated longtime consumer of classified information. She was keenly aware that her responsibilities as secretary of state would heavily involve classified information — whether it was “marked” classified or “born classified” because of the subject matter. It is irrelevant whether Clinton’s purpose was to transmit or store classified information on the private, non-secure server; prosecutors are not required to prove motive. The question is whether she knew classified information would end up on the server, and her set-up made that inevitable. That is, Clinton could have been prosecuted either for willfully mishandling classified information or for doing so through gross negligence. As I elaborate in the column, the Times did not address the controlling statute in its 8,000-word article. Instead, the story was that Clinton could not be charged because of the purported Petraeus precedent. We are to believe that the evidence of former CIA director David Petreaus’s criminal intent was far stronger than Clinton’s, yet he was not charged with the felony mishandling of classified information (he was permitted to plead guilty to a misdemeanor); ergo, it would have been an abuse of prosecutorial discretion to charge Clinton with the felony.'

Read more at: Comey Sticks to His Claim That Hillary Lacked Criminal Intent

 

[bripat9643]

You haven't quoted any truth, numskull. You've have pontificated and told us to believe you because you're supposedly an authority. However, the legal profession says you aren't an authority.

Even if I were a lawyer you wouldn't listen.

Fact is, I AM more educated in law than you are. Comey IS a lawyer, was the top law enforcement officer in the country, and Director of the FBI, and told you and all the other idiots in this country that he couldn't find the intent needed to suggest filing charges against Clinton. You still don't listen.

Are you claiming that intent needs to be present before bringing charges against Clinton? If you really WERE educated in the law then you'd know that isn't the case at all.

No... like Comey said, he couldn't find intent, therefor he wasn't recommending charges against Clinton. Why charge her if you can't prove intent? It would be a waste of time, money, and resources.

Hillary Rodham Clinton committed a felony. That is apparent from the facts and in the plain-language of the federal statute that prohibits "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information", 18 U.S. Code § 793(e) and (f). This offense carries a potential penalty of ten years imprisonment.

It's called a prima facie case: clear on the basis of known facts.

It's up to prosecutorial discretion by the US Attorney as to what charges may be filed and when. Nonetheless, Mrs. Clinton is clearly chargeable for violation of federal law.

Comey was tasked with doing an investigation and RECOMMENDING if charges be filed. He said there was no clear cut evidence of INTENT and that he was not recommending to the AG to file charges.

You can argue this until the cows come home but this is FACT and those people know a whole hell of a lot more about the case and law than you do.

When I first came to this forum I argued with every Clinton supporter EVERY single day because I KNOW Clinton is crooked and dirty. She should be in jail for Benghazi and I think she should be in trouble for her email mess, BUT just as in science, with law you need to follow the rules and make decisions based on the facts and evidence and not on emotion. If you go around making decisions based on bias and emotion you are not going to make it very far. Comey didn't get to where he was by making rash decisions. He worked under both political parties, is well educated, and held the trust of MANY MANY people from both sides of the isle.

So you can argue this until you are blue in the face but you are wrong. Every single one of you in this thread that say he should have recommended charges without proper evidence of intent are wrong, and you would have just cost the country a shit load of money for nothing.

Yeah, we know Comey said that. No one is arguing that he didn't say it. We concede that it's a fact that he said it. However, what you continually fail to acknowledge is that what Comey said was a ruse designed to let Hillary off the hook despite the fact that she's guilty as hell.

You like to use your bogus discredited premise whenever you post on this subject, which is what makes you a lying douche bag. No matter how many times you deny it, the bottom line is that the statute requires only gross negligence, not criminal intent. The term "gross negligence is in the statute. How can you have criminal intent and be guilty of gross negligence at the same time? Criminal intent implies that your actions were not negligent. They were deliberate. Gross negligence implies that you had no criminal intent. The two things are mutually exclusive.

If you were able to commit logic you would simply concede the point and slink away.

 

[Iceweasel]

That doesn't make you a lawyer, bonehead.

Please quote me where I said I was a lawyer dipshit. Part of getting my degree it was required to take law classes. I know that is hard for you to understand.

In other words, if you started giving out legal advice for money you would be arrested.

Does that just about sum it up?

If I was going out representing myself as an attorney and taking money for it? Yes. If I talk about law on an internet forum and quote the truth? Nope.

So I'm still waiting for you to quote where I said I was a lawyer.

You run your yap about it quite a bit and so far you've always been wrong. You threw your money away.

Man it must make you jealous that you think you know everything about law because of being a forum member on some law enforcement site, and here I am graduated Summa Cum Laude from one of the top Criminal Justice Universities in the country with a degree in Criminal Justice and a Minor in Police Studies, and I have to point out every time you are wrong. I just ignored you and quit replying to you for so long... but you still keep replying to my posts and trying to talk shit. Go look up what Summa Cum Laude means and get back with me.

Maybe one day you'll get over your jealousy and you can start to learn some stuff from my posts. Now I'll go back to ignoring all your posts.

I never claimed to "know about law", I've responded to your obvious horseshit. You are a consistent liar. Pounding your tiny chest doesn't impress. I don't need to go look something up nor do I let punks order me around. If you don't like responses to your stupidity don't post them.

 

[bripat9643]

That doesn't make you a lawyer, bonehead.

Please quote me where I said I was a lawyer dipshit. Part of getting my degree it was required to take law classes. I know that is hard for you to understand.

In other words, if you started giving out legal advice for money you would be arrested.

Does that just about sum it up?

If I was going out representing myself as an attorney and taking money for it? Yes. If I talk about law on an internet forum and quote the truth? Nope.

So I'm still waiting for you to quote where I said I was a lawyer.

You run your yap about it quite a bit and so far you've always been wrong. You threw your money away.

Man it must make you jealous that you think you know everything about law because of being a forum member on some law enforcement site, and here I am graduated Summa Cum Laude from one of the top Criminal Justice Universities in the country with a degree in Criminal Justice and a Minor in Police Studies, and I have to point out every time you are wrong. I just ignored you and quit replying to you for so long... but you still keep replying to my posts and trying to talk shit. Go look up what Summa Cum Laude means and get back with me.

Maybe one day you'll get over your jealousy and you can start to learn some stuff from my posts. Now I'll go back to ignoring all your posts.

As you have already admitted, you would be arrested if you attempted to peddle your legal "expertise" in any state.