Donald Trump says Hillary Clinton should go to jail

[nicoleivy5]

Black bold:
No it does not. You can be too lazy to present evidence to support your assertion, but don't expect anyone to accept your assertions/conclusions merely because you say they are so.

Prosecutor said publicly she was going to get justice for the dead criminal and put the officers in jail, before any investigation was done, she pushed crap through the grand jury to get indictments, obtained ZERO convictions. So tell us hero, is she just totally incompetent or was she trying to appease the public, namely BLM?

real talk

Are you so seriously incompetent you can't contribute meaningful dialog to your own thread? Why is it "real talk"?

real talk means the things thats being talked about is real
Its similar to saying Thats the truth

Oh right, so why do you use it in replies to conflicting statements? Both can't be true.

they both can be true, but one is more true than the other

 

[dani67]

Donald Trump says Hillary Clinton should go to jail
"Ocala, Florida (CNN)Donald Trump said Wednesday that Hillary Clinton "has to go to jail" because the scandal over her email server, comments that mark a major departure from the American political tradition.

The GOP nominee, firing up a large crowd of loyal supporters during a swing through Florida, also laid into the Democratic nominee over her health and seized on disclosures from hacked emails of her campaign chairman, John Podesta, released by Wikileaks."

I think Trump is getting a little carried away

Populism
Populism is a political ideology that holds that virtuous citizens are mistreated by a small circle of elites, who can be overthrown if the people recognize the danger and work together. Populism depicts elites as trampling on the rights, values, and voice of the legitimate people
Populism - Wikipedia
Populist movements are found in many democratic nations. Cas Mudde says, "Many observers have noted that populism is inherent to representative democracy; after all, do populists not juxtapose 'the pure people' against 'the corrupt elite'?

 

[nicoleivy5]

Donald Trump says Hillary Clinton should go to jail
"Ocala, Florida (CNN)Donald Trump said Wednesday that Hillary Clinton "has to go to jail" because the scandal over her email server, comments that mark a major departure from the American political tradition.

The GOP nominee, firing up a large crowd of loyal supporters during a swing through Florida, also laid into the Democratic nominee over her health and seized on disclosures from hacked emails of her campaign chairman, John Podesta, released by Wikileaks."

I think Trump is getting a little carried away

Populism
Populism is a political ideology that holds that virtuous citizens are mistreated by a small circle of elites, who can be overthrown if the people recognize the danger and work together. Populism depicts elites as trampling on the rights, values, and voice of the legitimate people
Populism - Wikipedia
Populist movements are found in many democratic nations. Cas Mudde says, "Many observers have noted that populism is inherent to representative democracy; after all, do populists not juxtapose 'the pure people' against 'the corrupt elite'?

agreed

 

[320 Years of History]

Excuse me? Are you truly suggesting that whether one should be and is charged with a crime is a matter of whether the "court of public opinion" thinks so? If so, you're the one living in Fantasyland.

Nope, just saying that's exactly why the Baltimore 6 were indicted.

You're going to need to show some sort of credible proof of the veracity of your assertion -- the Baltimore 6 were charged because of public opinion and not because the DA's off ice felt there was enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were guilty of the crimes with which they were charged. You thinking or saying that is the case will not make it so.

The outcome speaks for itself.

Black bold:
No it does not. You can be too lazy to present evidence to support your assertion, but don't expect anyone to accept your assertions/conclusions merely because you say they are so.

Prosecutor said publicly she was going to get justice for the dead criminal and put the officers in jail, before any investigation was done, she pushed crap through the grand jury to get indictments, obtained ZERO convictions. So tell us hero, is she just totally incompetent or was she trying to appease the public, namely BLM?

Red:
Okay...I had no idea I was conversing with a jurisprudential theory neophyte, but I know that now.

The "support" you offer for your claim that public opinion determines whether a prosecutor brings charges against someone is:

1. The prosecutor stated she would get justice --> Of course the prosecutor said that. Getting justice is what they are paid to do. Ever prosecutor says that.
2. The prosecutor "pushed crap through the grand jury to get indictments --> You don't know much about the grand jury process. The only people in grand jury proceedings, which are sealed, are the jurors, the prosecutor(s) and the witnesses the prosecutor chooses to call. A prosecutor presents only the evidence that will persuade the grand jury to indict. There is nobody there presenting anything that indicates the charges should not be levied. Prosecutors who cannot get indictments from grand juries may as well not be prosecutors. Just how hard do you think it is to get a grand jury to not even unanimously say, "Yes, there's enough evidence to bring the case to trial," when the only information they are given is the prosecution's evidence?
   
3. Obtaining no conviction --> Obtaining no conviction is not an indication of whether prosecutors brought the charges to propitiate public opinion. It is an indication of whether the defense presented a stronger case at the criminal trial than did the prosecution. A "not guilty" verdict indicates that the jury did not construe the prosecution as having successfully shown that the accused person, beyond a reasonable doubt, did (actus rea) and, where applicable thought (mens rea), as the prosecutor claimed and attempted to show. Actually obtaining a conviction (or not) has nothing to do with the reason why a prosecutor will bring charges other than the fact that s/he won't bring charges if s/he doesn't believe s/he can obtain one; however, his/her believing that so is no indication of whether it will be so. Every single case in which the accused person was found not guilty is proof of that.

Blue:
That the prosecutor was trying to appease the public -- in any sense other than the broad one of doing their duty as prosecutors -- is the claim you made, and I'm not about to prove it for you because I don't agree with it. It's a claim you have yet to show that appeasement of public sentiment, even in the specific instance of the Baltimore 6 prosecutor, determines whether prosecutors bring charges. Were public opinion a key driver to whether to bring charges, Hillary Clinton would have been charged in connection with "email-gate."

Your suggestion that public opinion determines whether one is charged or not charged with a crime is to say essentially that our legal system consists mainly of kangaroo courts, jurisprudential theory, practice, and proceedings. Were public opinion the determining factor in whether prosecutors levy charges, there'd be no need for our Constitutional amendment guaranteeing due process. We could just return to having "witch trials" and "witch hunts" because that's all our legal system would be were we to conduct the legal process based on popular public opinion.

We've had that sort of "justice" at more than a few points in our infamous past dating from the Salem Witch Trials to the myriad miscarriages of justice against blacks throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. I'd just as soon we not open the 21st century with more of the same. From all our current ills, we surely have evolved beyond that as a people.

 

[320 Years of History]

Prosecutor said publicly she was going to get justice for the dead criminal and put the officers in jail, before any investigation was done, she pushed crap through the grand jury to get indictments, obtained ZERO convictions. So tell us hero, is she just totally incompetent or was she trying to appease the public, namely BLM?

real talk

Are you so seriously incompetent you can't contribute meaningful dialog to your own thread? Why is it "real talk"?

real talk means the things thats being talked about is real
Its similar to saying Thats the truth

Oh right, so why do you use it in replies to conflicting statements? Both can't be true.

they both can be true, but one is more true than the other

 

[nicoleivy5]

Prosecutor said publicly she was going to get justice for the dead criminal and put the officers in jail, before any investigation was done, she pushed crap through the grand jury to get indictments, obtained ZERO convictions. So tell us hero, is she just totally incompetent or was she trying to appease the public, namely BLM?

real talk

Are you so seriously incompetent you can't contribute meaningful dialog to your own thread? Why is it "real talk"?

real talk means the things thats being talked about is real
Its similar to saying Thats the truth

Oh right, so why do you use it in replies to conflicting statements? Both can't be true.

they both can be true, but one is more true than the other

haha funny pics

 

[OKTexas]

Nope, just saying that's exactly why the Baltimore 6 were indicted.

You're going to need to show some sort of credible proof of the veracity of your assertion -- the Baltimore 6 were charged because of public opinion and not because the DA's off ice felt there was enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were guilty of the crimes with which they were charged. You thinking or saying that is the case will not make it so.

The outcome speaks for itself.

Black bold:
No it does not. You can be too lazy to present evidence to support your assertion, but don't expect anyone to accept your assertions/conclusions merely because you say they are so.

Prosecutor said publicly she was going to get justice for the dead criminal and put the officers in jail, before any investigation was done, she pushed crap through the grand jury to get indictments, obtained ZERO convictions. So tell us hero, is she just totally incompetent or was she trying to appease the public, namely BLM?

Red:
Okay...I had no idea I was conversing with a jurisprudential theory neophyte, but I know that now.

The "support" you offer for your claim that public opinion determines whether a prosecutor brings charges against someone is:

1. The prosecutor stated she would get justice --> Of course the prosecutor said that. Getting justice is what they are paid to do. Ever prosecutor says that.
2. The prosecutor "pushed crap through the grand jury to get indictments --> You don't know much about the grand jury process. The only people in grand jury proceedings, which are sealed, are the jurors, the prosecutor(s) and the witnesses the prosecutor chooses to call. A prosecutor presents only the evidence that will persuade the grand jury to indict. There is nobody there presenting anything that indicates the charges should not be levied. Prosecutors who cannot get indictments from grand juries may as well not be prosecutors. Just how hard do you think it is to get a grand jury to not even unanimously say, "Yes, there's enough evidence to bring the case to trial," when the only information they are given is the prosecution's evidence?
   
3. Obtaining no conviction --> Obtaining no conviction is not an indication of whether prosecutors brought the charges to propitiate public opinion. It is an indication of whether the defense presented a stronger case at the criminal trial than did the prosecution. A "not guilty" verdict indicates that the jury did not construe the prosecution as having successfully shown that the accused person, beyond a reasonable doubt, did (actus rea) and, where applicable thought (mens rea), as the prosecutor claimed and attempted to show. Actually obtaining a conviction (or not) has nothing to do with the reason why a prosecutor will bring charges other than the fact that s/he won't bring charges if s/he doesn't believe s/he can obtain one; however, his/her believing that so is no indication of whether it will be so. Every single case in which the accused person was found not guilty is proof of that.

Blue:
That the prosecutor was trying to appease the public -- in any sense other than the broad one of doing their duty as prosecutors -- is the claim you made, and I'm not about to prove it for you because I don't agree with it. It's a claim you have yet to show that appeasement of public sentiment, even in the specific instance of the Baltimore 6 prosecutor, determines whether prosecutors bring charges. Were public opinion a key driver to whether to bring charges, Hillary Clinton would have been charged in connection with "email-gate."

Your suggestion that public opinion determines whether one is charged or not charged with a crime is to say essentially that our legal system consists mainly of kangaroo courts, jurisprudential theory, practice, and proceedings. Were public opinion the determining factor in whether prosecutors levy charges, there'd be no need for our Constitutional amendment guaranteeing due process. We could just return to having "witch trials" and "witch hunts" because that's all our legal system would be were we to conduct the legal process based on popular public opinion.

We've had that sort of "justice" at more than a few points in our infamous past dating from the Salem Witch Trials to the myriad miscarriages of justice against blacks throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. I'd just as soon we not open the 21st century with more of the same. From all our current ills, we surely have evolved beyond that as a people.

So does it feel to spew all that shit and say nothing? You ignored key words in my statement and went off on an unrelated rant. Good job regressive. She indicted 6 officers and has nothing to show for it, even though she had promised what the outcome would be, jail for the officers, that's not promising justice. Ever hear the saying a determined prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich, she managed to do so and no one got to eat. Now let's get away form you lame deflection and get back to the topic, the crimes of the hildabitch.

 

[nicoleivy5]

Donald Trump says Hillary Clinton should go to jail
"Ocala, Florida (CNN)Donald Trump said Wednesday that Hillary Clinton "has to go to jail" because the scandal over her email server, comments that mark a major departure from the American political tradition.

The GOP nominee, firing up a large crowd of loyal supporters during a swing through Florida, also laid into the Democratic nominee over her health and seized on disclosures from hacked emails of her campaign chairman, John Podesta, released by Wikileaks."

I think Trump is getting a little carried away

i think its not true

 

[320 Years of History]

You're going to need to show some sort of credible proof of the veracity of your assertion -- the Baltimore 6 were charged because of public opinion and not because the DA's off ice felt there was enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were guilty of the crimes with which they were charged. You thinking or saying that is the case will not make it so.

The outcome speaks for itself.

Black bold:
No it does not. You can be too lazy to present evidence to support your assertion, but don't expect anyone to accept your assertions/conclusions merely because you say they are so.

Prosecutor said publicly she was going to get justice for the dead criminal and put the officers in jail, before any investigation was done, she pushed crap through the grand jury to get indictments, obtained ZERO convictions. So tell us hero, is she just totally incompetent or was she trying to appease the public, namely BLM?

Red:
Okay...I had no idea I was conversing with a jurisprudential theory neophyte, but I know that now.

The "support" you offer for your claim that public opinion determines whether a prosecutor brings charges against someone is:

1. The prosecutor stated she would get justice --> Of course the prosecutor said that. Getting justice is what they are paid to do. Ever prosecutor says that.
2. The prosecutor "pushed crap through the grand jury to get indictments --> You don't know much about the grand jury process. The only people in grand jury proceedings, which are sealed, are the jurors, the prosecutor(s) and the witnesses the prosecutor chooses to call. A prosecutor presents only the evidence that will persuade the grand jury to indict. There is nobody there presenting anything that indicates the charges should not be levied. Prosecutors who cannot get indictments from grand juries may as well not be prosecutors. Just how hard do you think it is to get a grand jury to not even unanimously say, "Yes, there's enough evidence to bring the case to trial," when the only information they are given is the prosecution's evidence?
   
3. Obtaining no conviction --> Obtaining no conviction is not an indication of whether prosecutors brought the charges to propitiate public opinion. It is an indication of whether the defense presented a stronger case at the criminal trial than did the prosecution. A "not guilty" verdict indicates that the jury did not construe the prosecution as having successfully shown that the accused person, beyond a reasonable doubt, did (actus rea) and, where applicable thought (mens rea), as the prosecutor claimed and attempted to show. Actually obtaining a conviction (or not) has nothing to do with the reason why a prosecutor will bring charges other than the fact that s/he won't bring charges if s/he doesn't believe s/he can obtain one; however, his/her believing that so is no indication of whether it will be so. Every single case in which the accused person was found not guilty is proof of that.

Blue:
That the prosecutor was trying to appease the public -- in any sense other than the broad one of doing their duty as prosecutors -- is the claim you made, and I'm not about to prove it for you because I don't agree with it. It's a claim you have yet to show that appeasement of public sentiment, even in the specific instance of the Baltimore 6 prosecutor, determines whether prosecutors bring charges. Were public opinion a key driver to whether to bring charges, Hillary Clinton would have been charged in connection with "email-gate."

Your suggestion that public opinion determines whether one is charged or not charged with a crime is to say essentially that our legal system consists mainly of kangaroo courts, jurisprudential theory, practice, and proceedings. Were public opinion the determining factor in whether prosecutors levy charges, there'd be no need for our Constitutional amendment guaranteeing due process. We could just return to having "witch trials" and "witch hunts" because that's all our legal system would be were we to conduct the legal process based on popular public opinion.

We've had that sort of "justice" at more than a few points in our infamous past dating from the Salem Witch Trials to the myriad miscarriages of justice against blacks throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. I'd just as soon we not open the 21st century with more of the same. From all our current ills, we surely have evolved beyond that as a people.

So does it feel to spew all that shit and say nothing? You ignored key words in my statement and went off on an unrelated rant. Good job regressive. She indicted 6 officers and has nothing to show for it, even though she had promised what the outcome would be, jail for the officers, that's not promising justice. Ever hear the saying a determined prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich, she managed to do so and no one got to eat. Now let's get away form you lame deflection and get back to the topic, the crimes of the hildabitch.

Red:
I deflected not at all. I directly addressed each of the "red" points you claim I did not. I guess you didn't read what I wrote.

If you are referring to my not addressing the phrase "before any investigation was done," I did ignore that. I did so out of courtesy to you for I thought I was being sufficiently castigatory by merely showing the silliness of the rest of your comment. Since, however, you insist, the fact of the matter is that a prosecutor cannot and will not bring anything before a grand jury prior to their office and/or a police force conducting an investigation. How the hell would a prosecutor have anything to present to the grand jury if there were no investigation conducted?

So, yes, I didn't address that phrase because of all that you wrote it was the most unintelligent thing you wrote, making it such "low hanging fruit" that I thought it beneath me "bend over" to "pick it." But, hey, you clearly want to be hung by your petard, so in the preceding paragraph, I have obliged you.

 

[Dr Grump]

[

Setting up the private server to avoid the law meets and exceeds your BS claim. And like I said before, keep your fucking deflections, you want to talk about Bush, start another thread.

Not if she didn't know it was totally illegal. Which she didn't.

Not a deflection. You trying to ignore it is a deflection in itself.

 

[nicoleivy5]

great post agreed

Donald Trump says Hillary Clinton should go to jail
"Ocala, Florida (CNN)Donald Trump said Wednesday that Hillary Clinton "has to go to jail" because the scandal over her email server, comments that mark a major departure from the American political tradition.

The GOP nominee, firing up a large crowd of loyal supporters during a swing through Florida, also laid into the Democratic nominee over her health and seized on disclosures from hacked emails of her campaign chairman, John Podesta, released by Wikileaks."

I think Trump is getting a little carried away

Populism
Populism is a political ideology that holds that virtuous citizens are mistreated by a small circle of elites, who can be overthrown if the people recognize the danger and work together. Populism depicts elites as trampling on the rights, values, and voice of the legitimate people
Populism - Wikipedia
Populist movements are found in many democratic nations. Cas Mudde says, "Many observers have noted that populism is inherent to representative democracy; after all, do populists not juxtapose 'the pure people' against 'the corrupt elite'?

 

[OKTexas]

[

Setting up the private server to avoid the law meets and exceeds your BS claim. And like I said before, keep your fucking deflections, you want to talk about Bush, start another thread.

Not if she didn't know it was totally illegal. Which she didn't.

Not a deflection. You trying to ignore it is a deflection in itself.

That's a fucking lie too, she knew federal records keeping requirements form her time in the senate, she sat up that email server two months prior to taking office at state. She fully intended to circumvent the records keeping laws or she would have followed her own department policies that required any official business conducted on an outside system to be copied to the state dept archivist. She didn't want outside scrutiny on what she was doing via FOIA requests so she tried to hide all her shit. Even when state received congressional subpoenas requesting her email on Benghazi and state told congress they couldn't find any, she remained silent, she sure as hell didn't tell congress she had all those on a different system, did she? The existence of the private server was not revealed voluntarily by anyone at state, it was discovered in a federal suit on a FOIA request. She had every intent to break the law from day one and the fact that classified documents were put at risk during the commission of that crime should have been icing on the cake for any prosecutor. She has provided any prosecutor ample intent and evidence of criminality.

Now run along and pretend this was something other than a political cover up.

 

[OKTexas]

The outcome speaks for itself.

Black bold:
No it does not. You can be too lazy to present evidence to support your assertion, but don't expect anyone to accept your assertions/conclusions merely because you say they are so.

Prosecutor said publicly she was going to get justice for the dead criminal and put the officers in jail, before any investigation was done, she pushed crap through the grand jury to get indictments, obtained ZERO convictions. So tell us hero, is she just totally incompetent or was she trying to appease the public, namely BLM?

Red:
Okay...I had no idea I was conversing with a jurisprudential theory neophyte, but I know that now.

The "support" you offer for your claim that public opinion determines whether a prosecutor brings charges against someone is:

1. The prosecutor stated she would get justice --> Of course the prosecutor said that. Getting justice is what they are paid to do. Ever prosecutor says that.
2. The prosecutor "pushed crap through the grand jury to get indictments --> You don't know much about the grand jury process. The only people in grand jury proceedings, which are sealed, are the jurors, the prosecutor(s) and the witnesses the prosecutor chooses to call. A prosecutor presents only the evidence that will persuade the grand jury to indict. There is nobody there presenting anything that indicates the charges should not be levied. Prosecutors who cannot get indictments from grand juries may as well not be prosecutors. Just how hard do you think it is to get a grand jury to not even unanimously say, "Yes, there's enough evidence to bring the case to trial," when the only information they are given is the prosecution's evidence?
   
3. Obtaining no conviction --> Obtaining no conviction is not an indication of whether prosecutors brought the charges to propitiate public opinion. It is an indication of whether the defense presented a stronger case at the criminal trial than did the prosecution. A "not guilty" verdict indicates that the jury did not construe the prosecution as having successfully shown that the accused person, beyond a reasonable doubt, did (actus rea) and, where applicable thought (mens rea), as the prosecutor claimed and attempted to show. Actually obtaining a conviction (or not) has nothing to do with the reason why a prosecutor will bring charges other than the fact that s/he won't bring charges if s/he doesn't believe s/he can obtain one; however, his/her believing that so is no indication of whether it will be so. Every single case in which the accused person was found not guilty is proof of that.

Blue:
That the prosecutor was trying to appease the public -- in any sense other than the broad one of doing their duty as prosecutors -- is the claim you made, and I'm not about to prove it for you because I don't agree with it. It's a claim you have yet to show that appeasement of public sentiment, even in the specific instance of the Baltimore 6 prosecutor, determines whether prosecutors bring charges. Were public opinion a key driver to whether to bring charges, Hillary Clinton would have been charged in connection with "email-gate."

Your suggestion that public opinion determines whether one is charged or not charged with a crime is to say essentially that our legal system consists mainly of kangaroo courts, jurisprudential theory, practice, and proceedings. Were public opinion the determining factor in whether prosecutors levy charges, there'd be no need for our Constitutional amendment guaranteeing due process. We could just return to having "witch trials" and "witch hunts" because that's all our legal system would be were we to conduct the legal process based on popular public opinion.

We've had that sort of "justice" at more than a few points in our infamous past dating from the Salem Witch Trials to the myriad miscarriages of justice against blacks throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. I'd just as soon we not open the 21st century with more of the same. From all our current ills, we surely have evolved beyond that as a people.

So does it feel to spew all that shit and say nothing? You ignored key words in my statement and went off on an unrelated rant. Good job regressive. She indicted 6 officers and has nothing to show for it, even though she had promised what the outcome would be, jail for the officers, that's not promising justice. Ever hear the saying a determined prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich, she managed to do so and no one got to eat. Now let's get away form you lame deflection and get back to the topic, the crimes of the hildabitch.

Red:
I deflected not at all. I directly addressed each of the "red" points you claim I did not. I guess you didn't read what I wrote.

If you are referring to my not addressing the phrase "before any investigation was done," I did ignore that. I did so out of courtesy to you for I thought I was being sufficiently castigatory by merely showing the silliness of the rest of your comment. Since, however, you insist, the fact of the matter is that a prosecutor cannot and will not bring anything before a grand jury prior to their office and/or a police force conducting an investigation. How the hell would a prosecutor have anything to present to the grand jury if there were no investigation conducted?

So, yes, I didn't address that phrase because of all that you wrote it was the most unintelligent thing you wrote, making it such "low hanging fruit" that I thought it beneath me "bend over" to "pick it." But, hey, you clearly want to be hung by your petard, so in the preceding paragraph, I have obliged you.

You still didn't address the key words. I said she promised the officers would go to jail before any investigation was done. Which she did, got it? Good.

 

[ABikerSailor]

[

Setting up the private server to avoid the law meets and exceeds your BS claim. And like I said before, keep your fucking deflections, you want to talk about Bush, start another thread.

Not if she didn't know it was totally illegal. Which she didn't.

Not a deflection. You trying to ignore it is a deflection in itself.

That's a fucking lie too, she knew federal records keeping requirements form her time in the senate, she sat up that email server two months prior to taking office at state. She fully intended to circumvent the records keeping laws or she would have followed her own department policies that required any official business conducted on an outside system to be copied to the state dept archivist. She didn't want outside scrutiny on what she was doing via FOIA requests so she tried to hide all her shit. Even when state received congressional subpoenas requesting her email on Benghazi and state told congress they couldn't find any, she remained silent, she sure as hell didn't tell congress she had all those on a different system, did she? The existence of the private server was not revealed voluntarily by anyone at state, it was discovered in a federal suit on a FOIA request. She had every intent to break the law from day one and the fact that classified documents were put at risk during the commission of that crime should have been icing on the cake for any prosecutor. She has provided any prosecutor ample intent and evidence of criminality.

Now run along and pretend this was something other than a political cover up.

Actually, Hillary asked Colin Powell (the previous SOS) how she should do things, and he told her to set up a private server. I know that a lot of people didn't believe that Powell told Clinton to set up a private server but he did, and the emails have surfaced concerning that subject....................

Hillary Clinton's emails with Colin Powell released - CNNPolitics.com

 

[ScienceRocks]

And I think Trump so go to the nut house.

 

[320 Years of History]

Black bold:
No it does not. You can be too lazy to present evidence to support your assertion, but don't expect anyone to accept your assertions/conclusions merely because you say they are so.

Prosecutor said publicly she was going to get justice for the dead criminal and put the officers in jail, before any investigation was done, she pushed crap through the grand jury to get indictments, obtained ZERO convictions. So tell us hero, is she just totally incompetent or was she trying to appease the public, namely BLM?

Red:
Okay...I had no idea I was conversing with a jurisprudential theory neophyte, but I know that now.

The "support" you offer for your claim that public opinion determines whether a prosecutor brings charges against someone is:

1. The prosecutor stated she would get justice --> Of course the prosecutor said that. Getting justice is what they are paid to do. Ever prosecutor says that.
2. The prosecutor "pushed crap through the grand jury to get indictments --> You don't know much about the grand jury process. The only people in grand jury proceedings, which are sealed, are the jurors, the prosecutor(s) and the witnesses the prosecutor chooses to call. A prosecutor presents only the evidence that will persuade the grand jury to indict. There is nobody there presenting anything that indicates the charges should not be levied. Prosecutors who cannot get indictments from grand juries may as well not be prosecutors. Just how hard do you think it is to get a grand jury to not even unanimously say, "Yes, there's enough evidence to bring the case to trial," when the only information they are given is the prosecution's evidence?
   
3. Obtaining no conviction --> Obtaining no conviction is not an indication of whether prosecutors brought the charges to propitiate public opinion. It is an indication of whether the defense presented a stronger case at the criminal trial than did the prosecution. A "not guilty" verdict indicates that the jury did not construe the prosecution as having successfully shown that the accused person, beyond a reasonable doubt, did (actus rea) and, where applicable thought (mens rea), as the prosecutor claimed and attempted to show. Actually obtaining a conviction (or not) has nothing to do with the reason why a prosecutor will bring charges other than the fact that s/he won't bring charges if s/he doesn't believe s/he can obtain one; however, his/her believing that so is no indication of whether it will be so. Every single case in which the accused person was found not guilty is proof of that.

Blue:
That the prosecutor was trying to appease the public -- in any sense other than the broad one of doing their duty as prosecutors -- is the claim you made, and I'm not about to prove it for you because I don't agree with it. It's a claim you have yet to show that appeasement of public sentiment, even in the specific instance of the Baltimore 6 prosecutor, determines whether prosecutors bring charges. Were public opinion a key driver to whether to bring charges, Hillary Clinton would have been charged in connection with "email-gate."

Your suggestion that public opinion determines whether one is charged or not charged with a crime is to say essentially that our legal system consists mainly of kangaroo courts, jurisprudential theory, practice, and proceedings. Were public opinion the determining factor in whether prosecutors levy charges, there'd be no need for our Constitutional amendment guaranteeing due process. We could just return to having "witch trials" and "witch hunts" because that's all our legal system would be were we to conduct the legal process based on popular public opinion.

We've had that sort of "justice" at more than a few points in our infamous past dating from the Salem Witch Trials to the myriad miscarriages of justice against blacks throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. I'd just as soon we not open the 21st century with more of the same. From all our current ills, we surely have evolved beyond that as a people.

So does it feel to spew all that shit and say nothing? You ignored key words in my statement and went off on an unrelated rant. Good job regressive. She indicted 6 officers and has nothing to show for it, even though she had promised what the outcome would be, jail for the officers, that's not promising justice. Ever hear the saying a determined prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich, she managed to do so and no one got to eat. Now let's get away form you lame deflection and get back to the topic, the crimes of the hildabitch.

Red:
I deflected not at all. I directly addressed each of the "red" points you claim I did not. I guess you didn't read what I wrote.

If you are referring to my not addressing the phrase "before any investigation was done," I did ignore that. I did so out of courtesy to you for I thought I was being sufficiently castigatory by merely showing the silliness of the rest of your comment. Since, however, you insist, the fact of the matter is that a prosecutor cannot and will not bring anything before a grand jury prior to their office and/or a police force conducting an investigation. How the hell would a prosecutor have anything to present to the grand jury if there were no investigation conducted?

So, yes, I didn't address that phrase because of all that you wrote it was the most unintelligent thing you wrote, making it such "low hanging fruit" that I thought it beneath me "bend over" to "pick it." But, hey, you clearly want to be hung by your petard, so in the preceding paragraph, I have obliged you.

You still didn't address the key words. I said she promised the officers would go to jail before any investigation was done. Which she did, got it? Good.

[/QUOTE]

Red:
What you just posted above is what you thought the sentence below says? Really?

Prosecutor said publicly she was going to get justice for the dead criminal and put the officers in jail, before any investigation was done, she pushed crap through the grand jury to get indictments, obtained ZERO convictions.

The statement above is one I took as a mispunctuated one that should have been written as follows:

Prosecutor said publicly she was going to get justice for the dead criminal and put the officers in jail, before any investigation was done; she pushed crap through the grand jury to get indictments, obtained ZERO convictions.​

I do try to make sense of what folks write and I try not to give folks grief about grammatically incorrect statements. I'm not going to give you grief about yours either, but geez, dude. What appears to be the sentence's meaning given the most logical grammatical correction and what you actually meant to write are not at all close. To get the meaning you have stated out of the original sentence (nevermind that what you wrote isn't complete sentence, even though it has independent clauses), it would need to have been:

The prosecutor said publicly she was going to get justice for the dead criminal and put the officers in jail before any investigation was done; thus she pushed crap through the grand jury to get indictments yet obtained ZERO convictions.
​

 

[Dr Grump]

That's a fucking lie too, she knew federal records keeping requirements form her time in the senate, she sat up that email server two months prior to taking office at state. She fully intended to circumvent the records keeping laws or she would have followed her own department policies that required any official business conducted on an outside system to be copied to the state dept archivist. She didn't want outside scrutiny on what she was doing via FOIA requests so she tried to hide all her shit. Even when state received congressional subpoenas requesting her email on Benghazi and state told congress they couldn't find any, she remained silent, she sure as hell didn't tell congress she had all those on a different system, did she? The existence of the private server was not revealed voluntarily by anyone at state, it was discovered in a federal suit on a FOIA request. She had every intent to break the law from day one and the fact that classified documents were put at risk during the commission of that crime should have been icing on the cake for any prosecutor. She has provided any prosecutor ample intent and evidence of criminality.

Now run along and pretend this was something other than a political cover up.

BULLSHIT...total utter crap. You cannot prove any of that. Total speculation. Some of it MIGHT be true. But you have no idea.

 

[nicoleivy5]

Black bold:
No it does not. You can be too lazy to present evidence to support your assertion, but don't expect anyone to accept your assertions/conclusions merely because you say they are so.

Prosecutor said publicly she was going to get justice for the dead criminal and put the officers in jail, before any investigation was done, she pushed crap through the grand jury to get indictments, obtained ZERO convictions. So tell us hero, is she just totally incompetent or was she trying to appease the public, namely BLM?

Red:
Okay...I had no idea I was conversing with a jurisprudential theory neophyte, but I know that now.

The "support" you offer for your claim that public opinion determines whether a prosecutor brings charges against someone is:

1. The prosecutor stated she would get justice --> Of course the prosecutor said that. Getting justice is what they are paid to do. Ever prosecutor says that.
2. The prosecutor "pushed crap through the grand jury to get indictments --> You don't know much about the grand jury process. The only people in grand jury proceedings, which are sealed, are the jurors, the prosecutor(s) and the witnesses the prosecutor chooses to call. A prosecutor presents only the evidence that will persuade the grand jury to indict. There is nobody there presenting anything that indicates the charges should not be levied. Prosecutors who cannot get indictments from grand juries may as well not be prosecutors. Just how hard do you think it is to get a grand jury to not even unanimously say, "Yes, there's enough evidence to bring the case to trial," when the only information they are given is the prosecution's evidence?
   
3. Obtaining no conviction --> Obtaining no conviction is not an indication of whether prosecutors brought the charges to propitiate public opinion. It is an indication of whether the defense presented a stronger case at the criminal trial than did the prosecution. A "not guilty" verdict indicates that the jury did not construe the prosecution as having successfully shown that the accused person, beyond a reasonable doubt, did (actus rea) and, where applicable thought (mens rea), as the prosecutor claimed and attempted to show. Actually obtaining a conviction (or not) has nothing to do with the reason why a prosecutor will bring charges other than the fact that s/he won't bring charges if s/he doesn't believe s/he can obtain one; however, his/her believing that so is no indication of whether it will be so. Every single case in which the accused person was found not guilty is proof of that.

Blue:
That the prosecutor was trying to appease the public -- in any sense other than the broad one of doing their duty as prosecutors -- is the claim you made, and I'm not about to prove it for you because I don't agree with it. It's a claim you have yet to show that appeasement of public sentiment, even in the specific instance of the Baltimore 6 prosecutor, determines whether prosecutors bring charges. Were public opinion a key driver to whether to bring charges, Hillary Clinton would have been charged in connection with "email-gate."

Your suggestion that public opinion determines whether one is charged or not charged with a crime is to say essentially that our legal system consists mainly of kangaroo courts, jurisprudential theory, practice, and proceedings. Were public opinion the determining factor in whether prosecutors levy charges, there'd be no need for our Constitutional amendment guaranteeing due process. We could just return to having "witch trials" and "witch hunts" because that's all our legal system would be were we to conduct the legal process based on popular public opinion.

We've had that sort of "justice" at more than a few points in our infamous past dating from the Salem Witch Trials to the myriad miscarriages of justice against blacks throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. I'd just as soon we not open the 21st century with more of the same. From all our current ills, we surely have evolved beyond that as a people.

So does it feel to spew all that shit and say nothing? You ignored key words in my statement and went off on an unrelated rant. Good job regressive. She indicted 6 officers and has nothing to show for it, even though she had promised what the outcome would be, jail for the officers, that's not promising justice. Ever hear the saying a determined prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich, she managed to do so and no one got to eat. Now let's get away form you lame deflection and get back to the topic, the crimes of the hildabitch.

Red:
I deflected not at all. I directly addressed each of the "red" points you claim I did not. I guess you didn't read what I wrote.

If you are referring to my not addressing the phrase "before any investigation was done," I did ignore that. I did so out of courtesy to you for I thought I was being sufficiently castigatory by merely showing the silliness of the rest of your comment. Since, however, you insist, the fact of the matter is that a prosecutor cannot and will not bring anything before a grand jury prior to their office and/or a police force conducting an investigation. How the hell would a prosecutor have anything to present to the grand jury if there were no investigation conducted?

So, yes, I didn't address that phrase because of all that you wrote it was the most unintelligent thing you wrote, making it such "low hanging fruit" that I thought it beneath me "bend over" to "pick it." But, hey, you clearly want to be hung by your petard, so in the preceding paragraph, I have obliged you.

You still didn't address the key words. I said she promised the officers would go to jail before any investigation was done. Which she did, got it? Good.

Red:
What you just posted above is what you thought the sentence below says? Really?

Prosecutor said publicly she was going to get justice for the dead criminal and put the officers in jail, before any investigation was done, she pushed crap through the grand jury to get indictments, obtained ZERO convictions.

The statement above is one I took as a mispunctuated one that should have been written as follows:

Prosecutor said publicly she was going to get justice for the dead criminal and put the officers in jail, before any investigation was done; she pushed crap through the grand jury to get indictments, obtained ZERO convictions.​

I do try to make sense of what folks write and I try not to give folks grief about grammatically incorrect statements. I'm not going to give you grief about yours either, but geez, dude. What appears to be the sentence's meaning given the most logical grammatical correction and what you actually meant to write are not at all close. To get the meaning you have stated out of the original sentence (nevermind that what you wrote isn't complete sentence, even though it has independent clauses), it would need to have been:

The prosecutor said publicly she was going to get justice for the dead criminal and put the officers in jail before any investigation was done; thus she pushed crap through the grand jury to get indictments yet obtained ZERO convictions.
​

[/QUOTE]
Real talk! Great videos

 

[jillian]

Oh right, why did she set up the private system to begin with, do you think it was to avoid federal records keeping and FOIA laws? She had an obligation to CC a state dept archivist on every work relate email, she didn't do that, did she. The classified material was just part and parcel of an ongoing crime. Intent and foreknowledge is evident to anyone willing to see it.

Also you and your ilk thinking you're progressives just proves how delusional you really are. No one in the country is above the law, not even the hildabithch.

She had an obligation, but as I said, no mens reas, no case, case closed.

As I said, until Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz are brought to account of WMD, you neocon whackos don't have a leg to stand on. No one in the country is above the law, not even Dumbya.

Setting up the private server to avoid the law meets and exceeds your BS claim. And like I said before, keep your fucking deflections, you want to talk about Bush, start another thread.

your premise is totally incorrect. there hasn't been an iota of evidence that the email server was set up to "evade the law".

what "law" was broken? we'll wait

 

[nicoleivy5]

Oh right, why did she set up the private system to begin with, do you think it was to avoid federal records keeping and FOIA laws? She had an obligation to CC a state dept archivist on every work relate email, she didn't do that, did she. The classified material was just part and parcel of an ongoing crime. Intent and foreknowledge is evident to anyone willing to see it.

Also you and your ilk thinking you're progressives just proves how delusional you really are. No one in the country is above the law, not even the hildabithch.

She had an obligation, but as I said, no mens reas, no case, case closed.

As I said, until Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz are brought to account of WMD, you neocon whackos don't have a leg to stand on. No one in the country is above the law, not even Dumbya.

Setting up the private server to avoid the law meets and exceeds your BS claim. And like I said before, keep your fucking deflections, you want to talk about Bush, start another thread.

your premise is totally incorrect. there hasn't been an iota of evidence that the email server was set up to "evade the law".

what "law" was broken? we'll wait

no laws were broken at all