The One Question No One So Far Can Answer

[radical right]

Democrats were in the majority when the Benghazi hearings started?

Benghazi happened 9-11-11, republicans took over the house in Jan 2011.

The hearings didn't start until 2014.

Timeline of the investigation into the 2012 Benghazi attack - Wikipedia

2012 Benghazi attack
Location Benghazi, Libya
Date September 11–12, 2012
22:00 – 02:00 EET (UTC+02:00)
Target United States consulate and second location (annex)
Attack type
Armed assault, rioting, arson
Deaths 4
(including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens)

December 2012
December 7 The House Committee on Foreign Affairs announced that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will testify, as early as next week, at an open hearing on the Benghazi attack

 

[radical right]

No, actually the normal course of events is for someone to report a law broken, like someone being murdered, and then law enforcement investigates to determine who done it..

NOPE< they investigate both to find out who did it, and what the person actually did. In a case like murder, they have a grand jury that returns a true bill of what charges apply. So they first search for WHO did it, and only then dp they determine what law was broken..

 

[bripat9643]

No, actually the normal course of events is for someone to report a law broken, like someone being murdered, and then law enforcement investigates to determine who done it..

NOPE< they investigate both to find out who did it, and what the person actually did. In a case like murder, they have a grand jury that returns a true bill of what charges apply. So they first search for WHO did it, and only then dp they determine what law was broken..

Sorry, turd, but in normal criminal investigations crime are always committed to instigate an investigation. In a murder case, there has obviously been a crime committed.

You really one fucking stupid douche bag.

 

[radical right]

Sorry, turd, but in normal criminal investigations crime are always committed to instigate an investigation. In a murder case, there has obviously been a crime committed.

You really one fucking stupid douche bag.

Actually in any felony, the determination of what law was broken is done by the grand jury. Only then is the law that was broken determined.

 

[radical right]

Is an indictment the same as being charged?

First, there is an arrest and the police report that follows. The prosecutor then reads the police report and decides whether or not the arrested should be charged with a crime. Alternatively, the prosecutor can go to a grand jury and ask them to decide what criminal charges should be filed (an indictment).

 

[OKTexas]

You do realize that these congressional "investigations" are complete BS right? It's just an opportunity for the partisans to get on the mic and play politics.

I can't believe those boneless Republicans actually agreed to them. Would the Democrats have done the same if their guy was wriggling on the hook? Not a chance.

Did you already forget about Benghazi?

Democrats were in the majority when the Benghazi hearings started?

In the senate, not in the house. Benghazi happened 9-11-11, republicans took over the house in Jan 2011.

.

The hearings didn't start until 2014.

Republicans have been the majority in the house since 2011.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Yet no one can say what law was broken, go figure.

.

You seem to have a logic problem. You don't start with the law that was broken, and then investigate to prove it. You investigate to determine what law was broken. All we can do is give you a list of the laws that may have been violated. And they've been posted dozens of times.

Child you got that ass backwards, do your local police launch a murder investigation if there's no reasonable suspension to think a murder was committed? Logically a reasonable expectation of a crime has to exist to justify an investigation. There is no crime unless you can indicate what law was possibly broken. Other wise it's nothing but a witch hunt. Are you ready to admit this BS is just a witch hunt?

.

 

[bripat9643]

Sorry, turd, but in normal criminal investigations crime are always committed to instigate an investigation. In a murder case, there has obviously been a crime committed.

You really one fucking stupid douche bag.

Actually in any felony, the determination of what law was broken is done by the grand jury. Only then is the law that was broken determined.

You're splitting hairs, asshole.

 

[radical right]

Child you got that ass backwards, do your local police launch a murder investigation if there's no reasonable suspension to think a murder was committed?
.

Murder encorporates up to 7 different law violations. They don't know which one was broken until a full investigation.

 

[radical right]

Actually in any felony, the determination of what law was broken is done by the grand jury. Only then is the law that was broken determined.

You're splitting hairs, asshole.

I'm just pointing out that which law was broken isn't determined until AFTER a full investigation.

So asking which law was broken PRIOR to the investigation is BASS ACKWARDS.

 

[Care4all]

You do realize that these congressional "investigations" are complete BS right? It's just an opportunity for the partisans to get on the mic and play politics.

I can't believe those boneless Republicans actually agreed to them. Would the Democrats have done the same if their guy was wriggling on the hook? Not a chance.

Did you already forget about Benghazi?

Democrats were in the majority when the Benghazi hearings started?

In the senate, not in the house. Benghazi happened 9-11-11, republicans took over the house in Jan 2011.

.

The hearings didn't start until 2014.

just time for the upcoming election....

 

[OKTexas]

Sorry, turd, but in normal criminal investigations crime are always committed to instigate an investigation. In a murder case, there has obviously been a crime committed.

You really one fucking stupid douche bag.

Actually in any felony, the determination of what law was broken is done by the grand jury. Only then is the law that was broken determined.

Yeah, after a crime has been committed, an investigation provides a suspect and the evidence against that suspect is presented to them. You don't even know if a crime exist at this point.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Sorry, turd, but in normal criminal investigations crime are always committed to instigate an investigation. In a murder case, there has obviously been a crime committed.

You really one fucking stupid douche bag.

Actually in any felony, the determination of what law was broken is done by the grand jury. Only then is the law that was broken determined.

You're splitting hairs, asshole.

Trolling is the word for it.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Child you got that ass backwards, do your local police launch a murder investigation if there's no reasonable suspension to think a murder was committed?
.

Murder encorporates up to 7 different law violations. They don't know which one was broken until a full investigation.

But they know someone is dead and how they died.

.

 

[radical right]

Yeah, after a crime has been committed, an investigation provides a suspect and the evidence against that suspect is presented to them. You don't even know if a crime exist at this point.

.

You asked what law was broken, not what crime as committed. Crimes are general, laws are specific.

 

[radical right]

But they know someone is dead and how they died.

.

NOPE, how they died requires an investigation. Usually an autopsy. After which they still have a dead body, but it could have been anything from natural causes to suicide.

 

[radical right]

But they know someone is dead and how they died.
.

Death Of Chris Cornell, Powerhouse Voice Of Soundgarden, Ruled A Suicide

Death Of Chris Cornell, Powerhouse Voice Of Soundgarden, Ruled A Suicide

 

[Freewill]

I've posed this hypothetical question to a couple of members and so far no one seems up to the task of providing an answer. So now I'm posing it the whole board.

Ok, here's a hypothetical scenario. Let's say a Trump associate spoke to a Russian representative. The Russian told him we have some really bad shit on the hildabitch and the representative said wow, it would sure help us if you released it on Tuesday and they did exactly that.

Tell me, what specific law would have been broken? Don't give me an opinion, quote the law.

Any takers?

.

In your scenario, probably no law is being broken. If they were complicit in spreading false Informstion to influence an election then they are probably flirting with treason. If they told the Russians not to react to sanctions because the new administration will be more forgiving then I'm guessing that's a violation... not sure which exact law it's breaking though. Perhaps treason as well. Undermining our government

Do you mean for example when a president told the Russians that he would be more "flexible" after won the election? that sort of treason?

No, that isn't even close. Nice try though

Yeah, Obama as president was much much worse, not even close.

Saying that he will be more flexible to negotiate after an election is absolutely nothing. Don't know why you'd even bring it up. Talk about stretching an arguement. Weakest straw man ever!

Really, promising the new dreaded enemy of the US with being able to be more flexible is nothing? Really? What the hell do you think he meant? What he obviously meant in my opinion is that after he is elected he doesn't have to worry about doing the will of the people he will be more flexible to do whatever the RUSSIANS want. THAT IS NOT NOTHING. What I can't believe that he got away with such a treasonous statement meanwhile the MSM is running with the Trump BS.

 

[Freewill]

In your scenario, probably no law is being broken. If they were complicit in spreading false Informstion to influence an election then they are probably flirting with treason. If they told the Russians not to react to sanctions because the new administration will be more forgiving then I'm guessing that's a violation... not sure which exact law it's breaking though. Perhaps treason as well. Undermining our government

Do you mean for example when a president told the Russians that he would be more "flexible" after won the election? that sort of treason?

No, that isn't even close. Nice try though

Yeah, Obama as president was much much worse, not even close.

Saying that he will be more flexible to negotiate after an election is absolutely nothing. Don't know why you'd even bring it up. Talk about stretching an arguement. Weakest straw man ever!

Saying that he will be more flexible to negotiate after an election is absolutely nothing.

Isn't that what hysterical lefties are whining about Trump.....he'll be flexible with the Russians?

And Trump never said it, as did Obama.

 

[Slade3200]

In your scenario, probably no law is being broken. If they were complicit in spreading false Informstion to influence an election then they are probably flirting with treason. If they told the Russians not to react to sanctions because the new administration will be more forgiving then I'm guessing that's a violation... not sure which exact law it's breaking though. Perhaps treason as well. Undermining our government

Do you mean for example when a president told the Russians that he would be more "flexible" after won the election? that sort of treason?

No, that isn't even close. Nice try though

Yeah, Obama as president was much much worse, not even close.

Saying that he will be more flexible to negotiate after an election is absolutely nothing. Don't know why you'd even bring it up. Talk about stretching an arguement. Weakest straw man ever!

Really, promising the new dreaded enemy of the US with being able to be more flexible is nothing? Really? What the hell do you think he meant? What he obviously meant in my opinion is that after he is elected he doesn't have to worry about doing the will of the people he will be more flexible to do whatever the RUSSIANS want. THAT IS NOT NOTHING. What I can't believe that he got away with such a treasonous statement meanwhile the MSM is running with the Trump BS.

I think he meant, very simply, that everything is politicized during a campaign, so it isn't the most appropriate time to be engaging with an actor as controversial as Russia. You really don't understand that? Common sense man.