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

[Iceweasel]

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

That's his main problem. He doesn't have the ability to critically analyze anything. It all goes through political filters first. No degree can help him.

 

[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 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.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha....

Are you still going to say stupid shit comparing to talking about laws on a message board with someone presenting themselves as a lawyer and trying to practice law for money?

How the fuck did you get a degree in engineering? Did your parents donate a shit load of money to the college?

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

Seriously? How could you not see intent in what Clinton did? She knew that setting up private servers in her home was against State Department regulations. She knew that hiding how she conducted State Department business from Congressional oversight broke Federal law. When her private servers were uncovered by Congressional investigators she deliberately "scrubbed" them to eliminate what one can only assume was damaging evidence! If you don't see "intent" in all of this then intent doesn't exist for any crime!

 

[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.

Seriously? How could you not see intent in what Clinton did? She knew that setting up private servers in her home was against State Department regulations. She knew that hiding how she conducted State Department business from Congressional oversight broke Federal law. When her private servers were uncovered by Congressional investigators she deliberately "scrubbed" them to eliminate what one can only assume was damaging evidence! If you don't see "intent" in all of this then intent doesn't exist for any crime!

You have to have evidence of it. Did she tell someone why she was doing it, and was the reason to circumvent a law? Was there written communication of it? You can't bring mind readers into hearings. You have to have tangible evidence.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Russian lawyer who met with Trump Jr.: I didn't have Clinton info they wanted

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

Let me be quite blunt, Lewdog! Anyone who doesn't see that Comey's decision REEKED of collusion with Loretta Lynch and the Clinton's is delusional! His testimony before Congress was so tortured as he struggled to explain why he didn't prosecute Clinton that it was quite obvious that the decision not to prosecute was something he was TOLD to do!

 

[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 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.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha....

Are you still going to say stupid shit comparing to talking about laws on a message board with someone presenting themselves as a lawyer and trying to practice law for money?

How the fuck did you get a degree in engineering? Did your parents donate a shit load of money to the college?

You are pretending that you are some legal expert when the law says you are not. So other than yourself, who can vouch for your legal knowledge?

No one, obviously. Your claims about having an understanding of the law are no better than mine. The difference is I actually quote the law and understand the meaning of terms like "gross negligence," whereas you simply deny that they are in the law.

 

[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.

Seriously? How could you not see intent in what Clinton did? She knew that setting up private servers in her home was against State Department regulations. She knew that hiding how she conducted State Department business from Congressional oversight broke Federal law. When her private servers were uncovered by Congressional investigators she deliberately "scrubbed" them to eliminate what one can only assume was damaging evidence! If you don't see "intent" in all of this then intent doesn't exist for any crime!

You have to have evidence of it. Did she tell someone why she was doing it, and was the reason to circumvent a law? Was there written communication of it? You can't bring mind readers into hearings. You have to have tangible evidence.

The fact that she did it despite knowing that what she was doing violated the espionage act is all the evidence needed.

 

[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.

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.

Let me be quite blunt, Lewdog! Anyone who doesn't see that Comey's decision REEKED of collusion with Loretta Lynch and the Clinton's is delusional! His testimony before Congress was so tortured as he struggled to explain why he didn't prosecute Clinton that it was quite obvious that the decision not to prosecute was something he was TOLD to do!

People really don't understand how hard it is to make such important decision based completely on the facts and evidence and not with some sort of political or emotional bias.

 

[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 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.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha....

Are you still going to say stupid shit comparing to talking about laws on a message board with someone presenting themselves as a lawyer and trying to practice law for money?

How the fuck did you get a degree in engineering? Did your parents donate a shit load of money to the college?

You are pretending that you are some legal expert when the law says you are not. So other than yourself, who can vouch for your legal knowledge?

No one, obviously. Your claims about having an understanding of the law are no better than mine. The difference is I actually quote the law and understand the meaning of terms like "gross negligence," whereas you simply deny that they are in the law.

My college vouches for my legal knowledge as part of the curriculum that was mandatory in getting my college degree.

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

Seriously? How could you not see intent in what Clinton did? She knew that setting up private servers in her home was against State Department regulations. She knew that hiding how she conducted State Department business from Congressional oversight broke Federal law. When her private servers were uncovered by Congressional investigators she deliberately "scrubbed" them to eliminate what one can only assume was damaging evidence! If you don't see "intent" in all of this then intent doesn't exist for any crime!

You have to have evidence of it. Did she tell someone why she was doing it, and was the reason to circumvent a law? Was there written communication of it? You can't bring mind readers into hearings. You have to have tangible evidence.

Evidence of what? That she set up two personal servers in her home and used them to conduct official State Department business? Is that even in question? Do you deny that she hid the existence of those servers from Congress? Is that even in question? Are you denying that when those servers were discovered that Clinton ordered them scrubbed destroying tens of thousands of emails? Is that in question either? As a legal scholar one would assume that you would be familiar with the concept of "spoliation of evidence"? Quite frankly, it's hard to think of a case that illustrates that more clearly than Clinton and her servers being scrubbed!

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Seriously? How could you not see intent in what Clinton did? She knew that setting up private servers in her home was against State Department regulations. She knew that hiding how she conducted State Department business from Congressional oversight broke Federal law. When her private servers were uncovered by Congressional investigators she deliberately "scrubbed" them to eliminate what one can only assume was damaging evidence! If you don't see "intent" in all of this then intent doesn't exist for any crime!

You have to have evidence of it. Did she tell someone why she was doing it, and was the reason to circumvent a law? Was there written communication of it? You can't bring mind readers into hearings. You have to have tangible evidence.

Evidence of what? That she set up two personal servers in her home and used them to conduct official State Department business? Is that even in question? Do you deny that she hid the existence of those servers from Congress? Is that even in question? Are you denying that when those servers were discovered that Clinton ordered them scrubbed destroying tens of thousands of emails? Is that in question either? As a legal scholar one would assume that you would be familiar with the concept of "spoliation of evidence"? Quite frankly, it's hard to think of a case that illustrates that more clearly than Clinton and her servers being scrubbed!

It's a crime for Lewdog to peddle his legal "expertise." You obviously understand why.

 

[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.

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.

Seriously? How could you not see intent in what Clinton did? She knew that setting up private servers in her home was against State Department regulations. She knew that hiding how she conducted State Department business from Congressional oversight broke Federal law. When her private servers were uncovered by Congressional investigators she deliberately "scrubbed" them to eliminate what one can only assume was damaging evidence! If you don't see "intent" in all of this then intent doesn't exist for any crime!

You have to have evidence of it. Did she tell someone why she was doing it, and was the reason to circumvent a law? Was there written communication of it? You can't bring mind readers into hearings. You have to have tangible evidence.

Evidence of what? That she set up two personal servers in her home and used them to conduct official State Department business? Is that even in question? Do you deny that she hid the existence of those servers from Congress? Is that even in question? Are you denying that when those servers were discovered that Clinton ordered them scrubbed destroying tens of thousands of emails? Is that in question either? As a legal scholar one would assume that you would be familiar with the concept of "spoliation of evidence"? Quite frankly, it's hard to think of a case that illustrates that more clearly than Clinton and her servers being scrubbed!

I'm telling you, I wanted her in jail for Benghazi and her mishandling of classified info, HOWEVER, I was not part of that investigation nor saw all the evidence, sat in on all the interviews, or anything like that... so if Comey says that he could not find evidence of intent that could be proven, then guess what, I have to believe him.

So what it comes down to, is I trust Comey, and you don't. It has nothing to do with the rest of everything being discussed. I'm not for another fucking waste of money and time like the Benghazi investigation.

 

[Iceweasel]

My college vouches for more legal knowledge as part of the curriculum that was mandatory in getting my college degree.

WTF? Can somebody translate that?

 

[Lewdog]

My college vouches for more legal knowledge as part of the curriculum that was mandatory in getting my college degree.

WTF? Can somebody translate that?

Wow I had one typo word... go sue me. Did you look up what Summa Cum Laude meant?

 

[Iceweasel]

My college vouches for more legal knowledge as part of the curriculum that was mandatory in getting my college degree.

WTF? Can somebody translate that?

Wow I had one typo word... go sue me. Did you look up what Summa Cum Laude meant?

A typo? No, it was incoherent. Are you sober?

 

[Lewdog]

My college vouches for more legal knowledge as part of the curriculum that was mandatory in getting my college degree.

WTF? Can somebody translate that?

Wow I had one typo word... go sue me. Did you look up what Summa Cum Laude meant?

A typo? No, it was incoherent. Are you sober?

If you replace "more" with "my" it is correct. Which I edited.

Have you looked up what Summa Cum Laude means?

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

Let me be quite blunt, Lewdog! Anyone who doesn't see that Comey's decision REEKED of collusion with Loretta Lynch and the Clinton's is delusional! His testimony before Congress was so tortured as he struggled to explain why he didn't prosecute Clinton that it was quite obvious that the decision not to prosecute was something he was TOLD to do!

People really don't understand how hard it is to make such important decision based completely on the facts and evidence and not with some sort of political or emotional bias.

Are you really claiming that Comey made that decision based completely on the facts and evidence, Lewdog? I would posit that he made that decision purely for political reasons.

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

Seriously? How could you not see intent in what Clinton did? She knew that setting up private servers in her home was against State Department regulations. She knew that hiding how she conducted State Department business from Congressional oversight broke Federal law. When her private servers were uncovered by Congressional investigators she deliberately "scrubbed" them to eliminate what one can only assume was damaging evidence! If you don't see "intent" in all of this then intent doesn't exist for any crime!

You have to have evidence of it. Did she tell someone why she was doing it, and was the reason to circumvent a law? Was there written communication of it? You can't bring mind readers into hearings. You have to have tangible evidence.

Evidence of what? That she set up two personal servers in her home and used them to conduct official State Department business? Is that even in question? Do you deny that she hid the existence of those servers from Congress? Is that even in question? Are you denying that when those servers were discovered that Clinton ordered them scrubbed destroying tens of thousands of emails? Is that in question either? As a legal scholar one would assume that you would be familiar with the concept of "spoliation of evidence"? Quite frankly, it's hard to think of a case that illustrates that more clearly than Clinton and her servers being scrubbed!

I'm telling you, I wanted her in jail for Benghazi and her mishandling of classified info, HOWEVER, I was not part of that investigation nor saw all the evidence, sat in on all the interviews, or anything like that... so if Comey says that he could not find evidence of intent that could be proven, then guess what, I have to believe him.

So what it comes down to, is I trust Comey, and you don't. It has nothing to do with the rest of everything being discussed. I'm not for another fucking waste of money and time like the Benghazi investigation.

Quite frankly, after his testimony to Congress, I don't trust Comey! His explanation as to why he let Clinton's actions go made zero sense to me. It's obvious that Clinton knowingly broke the law. It's obvious that she knowingly withheld evidence from Congress. It's obvious that she had classified information on unsecured private servers. It's obvious that she deliberately destroyed evidence when those servers existence became known. That's what it "comes down to".

 

[LoneLaugher]

Trombies sure want to make this a thread about Clinton

How's everyone feel after reading the fucking emails?

How stupid is Jr.?