Russian Collusion Story Fell from the Headlines and Still Not One Piece of Evidence has come forward

[miketx]

this is what happened. This morning you saw several headlines on the Trump Russian story, so you decided to come here and say that there are no headlines.

Show the proof you will never have.

The burden is on the OP to prove his assertion

You want me to show that there are no news stories?!?!?!?

See the blank space between here:
























And here!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

The next 'big' Democrat Fake News story is gonna be blaming recent Hurricanes on Trump. Bet on it. So predictable. Stay tuned.

Nope, Trump is currently ranging about Mueller.
If he did nothing wrong, why so upset?
Trump is just like baby.

Are you seriously that stupid? Trump is trying to run the most powerful country in the world and little ankle biters are coming at him 10 deep, and soft headed imbeciles as "why is he so mad?" LMAO!

 

[meaner gene]

No, you didn't. At least be honest. Link me to the post where you posted what the crime was and I'll apologize.

He just claimed things were crimes. He posted no proof or citation.

Check his ass, that's where he pulled the crimes from.

 

[Missourian]

It is always a crime to send classified information by means of unsecured transmission. In this case, it was also illegal to receive via Clinton's homebrewed bathroom server...as SecState's work email is assumed to be secured...and would have been secured, had Clinton not been intentionally avoiding federal records keeping laws.

Recieving is never a crime.

Receiving is a crime when there is an underlying criminal act...like avoiding federal record keeping laws. Clinton's intentional subversion of the federal record keeping act led directly to the receiving of classified materials via an unsecured system.

In fact, even without the underlying criminal intent, it was absolutely foreseeable that classified material could be received over an unsecured server that the SecState used extensively for work related email correspondences...which also qualifies receiving only as a criminal offense.

 

[RDD_1210]

No, you didn't. At least be honest. Link me to the post where you posted what the crime was and I'll apologize.

He just claimed things were crimes. He posted no proof or citation.

Check his ass, that's where he pulled the crimes from.

Of course it is. When asked for proof, they pretend they shared it. They don't have proof and think everyone should accept vague references as fact just like they do.

 

[RDD_1210]

It is always a crime to send classified information by means of unsecured transmission. In this case, it was also illegal to receive via Clinton's homebrewed bathroom server...as SecState's work email is assumed to be secured...and would have been secured, had Clinton not been intentionally avoiding federal records keeping laws.

Recieving is never a crime.

Receiving is a crime when there is an underlying criminal act...like avoiding federal record keeping laws. Clinton's intentional subversion of the federal record keeping act led directly to the receiving of classified materials via an unsecured system.

Interesting. Where did you receive your law degree from?

 

[meaner gene]

Receiving is a crime when there is an underlying criminal act...like avoiding federal record keeping laws. Clinton's intentional subversion of the federal record keeping act led directly to the receiving of classified materials via an unsecured system.

Recieving can't be a crime, if it isn't a crime.

You relied on an underlying crime to prove criminality, which is like saying smoking is a crime, if you do it while driving drunk.

 

[otto105]

The media and every liberal shithole screamed about Russian Collusion, impeach Trump for months, but never a shred of the proof Schummer promised has ever came to light. Now the story seemed to have died and again no a shred of proof was presented.

The media and the Democrats have no honor!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Sure one may think that if they closed their eyes and listened to fox news...er opinion and narrative.

 

[meaner gene]

Receiving is a crime when there is an underlying criminal act...like avoiding federal record keeping laws. Clinton's intentional subversion of the federal record keeping act led directly to the receiving of classified materials via an unsecured system.

Then charge the underlying act. But recieving isn't the crime, even if you do it while committing a crime.

 

[meaner gene]

Interesting. Where did you receive your law degree from?

Where did you get the idea receiving classified information was a crime?

Robert Novack, the Pentagon Papers,

All proved you're wrong.

 

[otto105]

Receiving is a crime when there is an underlying criminal act...like avoiding federal record keeping laws. Clinton's intentional subversion of the federal record keeping act led directly to the receiving of classified materials via an unsecured system.

Recieving can't be a crime, if it isn't a crime.

You relied on an underlying crime to prove criminality, which is like saying smoking is a crime, if you do it while driving drunk.

The supposed classified material was retroactivity labeled classified.

 

[meaner gene]

The supposed classified material was retroactivity labeled classified.

Exactly. It was made retroactively illegal.

 

[meaner gene]

The argument was that Clinton "should have known" the information that wasn't marked classified, was in fact, classified.

Should have known, is not the legal standard when requiring guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,

 

[Missourian]

Recieving can't be a crime, if it isn't a crime.

You relied on an underlying crime to prove criminality, which is like saying smoking is a crime, if you do it while driving drunk.

Nothing of the sort...one crime leads inextricably to the other. A better analogy is felony murder. A pair of arm robbers knock over a bank. The police kill one of the robbers, and the other robber is charged with his murder. Those consequences (killing by police) were absolutely forseeable. Had there been no initial crime, the consequences would never have occurred.

Same here. In committing the underlying crime, the receiving of classified materials over the unsecured system was absolutely a forseeable result. Therefore, a chargeable crime.

 

[imawhosure]

The media and every liberal shithole screamed about Russian Collusion, impeach Trump for months, but never a shred of the proof Schummer promised has ever came to light. Now the story seemed to have died and again no a shred of proof was presented.

The media and the Democrats have no honor!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

this is what happened. This morning you saw several headlines on the Trump Russian story, so you decided to come here and say that there are no headlines.

Show the proof you will never have.

The burden is on the OP to prove his assertion

The media and every liberal shithole screamed about Russian Collusion, impeach Trump for months, but never a shred of the proof Schummer promised has ever came to light. Now the story seemed to have died and again no a shred of proof was presented.

The media and the Democrats have no honor!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Your OP might make sense if wasn't 100% wrong about the evidence thing and the story had died down thing. Otherwise, you are spot on.

Fake OP based on lies.

No sir, it is still all projection


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Explain to the incompetent one that it is impossible to prove a negative, lol.

And just for the lefties info, I am hearing that the YOUR investi-chango-russia-delusion-collusion is starting to wind down. They are going to second and 3rd tier players to find someone to hose........BUT.......get ready for it------->top tier Democrats are STILL on the block in the DOJs investigations, heheheheheheheheheheheehehehehe.

 

[meaner gene]

Recieving can't be a crime, if it isn't a crime.

You relied on an underlying crime to prove criminality, which is like saying smoking is a crime, if you do it while driving drunk.

Nothing of the sort...one crime lead inextricably to the other. A better analogy is felony murder. A pair of arm robbers knock over a bank. The police kill one of the robbers, and the other robber is charged with his murder. Those consequences (killing by police) were absolutely forseeable. Had there been no initial crime, the consequences would never had occurred.

Same here. The in committing the underlying crime, the receiving of classified materials over the unsecured system was absolutely a forseeable result. Therefore, a chargeable crime.

The felony murder rule is a unique legal exceprtion, which allows convicting somebody of murder who only abeted the crime, even if they took no actual part. Example the lookout for a burglary, where the criminals inside encounted an armed citizen, and one of the criminals was shot and killed.

The lookout faces felony murder.

 

[meaner gene]

A pair of arm robbers knock over a bank. The police kill one of the robbers, and the other robber is charged with his murder. Those consequences (killing by police) were absolutely forseeable. Had there been no initial crime, the consequences would never had occurred..

The same would have happened if the criminals were NOT armed, and the police kill one of them.

 

[miketx]

Recieving can't be a crime, if it isn't a crime.

You relied on an underlying crime to prove criminality, which is like saying smoking is a crime, if you do it while driving drunk.

Nothing of the sort...one crime lead inextricably to the other. A better analogy is felony murder. A pair of arm robbers knock over a bank. The police kill one of the robbers, and the other robber is charged with his murder. Those consequences (killing by police) were absolutely forseeable. Had there been no initial crime, the consequences would never had occurred.

Same here. The in committing the underlying crime, the receiving of classified materials over the unsecured system was absolutely a forseeable result. Therefore, a chargeable crime.

The felony murder rule is a unique legal exceprtion, which allows convicting somebody of murder who only abeted the crime, even if they took no actual part. Example the lookout for a burglary, where the criminals inside encounted an armed citizen, and one of the criminals was shot and killed.

The lookout faces felony murder.

Still, no names, just "somebody",

 

[meaner gene]

Same here. In committing the underlying crime, the receiving of classified materials over the unsecured system was absolutely a forseeable result. Therefore, a chargeable crime.

The felony murder statute is uniquely worded, where the crimes invoing classified material are clearly spelled out, and do not rely on any other acts except those specified.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The media and every liberal shithole screamed about Russian Collusion, impeach Trump for months, but never a shred of the proof Schummer promised has ever came to light. Now the story seemed to have died and again no a shred of proof was presented.

The media and the Democrats have no honor!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Your OP might make sense if wasn't 100% wrong about the evidence thing and the story had died down thing. Otherwise, you are spot on.

Fake OP based on lies.

Democrats have YET to produce the DNC server to investigators to prove and confirm Russia indeed hacked it, rather than a "leak" most likely from a Bernie supporter. I hope this all blows up in every progressives face with how mishandled the investigation was theough the left's obsession with producing evidence, and rather pathetic they are with finding an excuse for losing the White House.

DNC email server most wanted evidence for Russia investigations

 

[meaner gene]

The felony murder rule is a unique legal exceprtion, which allows convicting somebody of murder who only abeted the crime, even if they took no actual part. Example the lookout for a burglary, where the criminals inside encounted an armed citizen, and one of the criminals was shot and killed.

The lookout faces felony murder.

Still, no names, just "somebody",

Where do you get "somebody" from that post?