@averagejoe1 said" That phrase is used when a panel, a judge, or a jury ‘finds’ someone to be innocent."
Hillary was “found innocent of”? That phrase is used when a panel, a judge, or a jury ‘finds’ someone to be innocent. A single appointed govt officer has no such power.
So, she still must face a jury, at least. Will they find she is NOT guilty of destroying evidence or obstruction , or the server, or destroying govt property? I don’t mean to be funny, but what if H ...[text shortened]... having a torrid affair with Comey? He ‘found her’ innocent.
You fellers live in a sea of crap.
You are right. I misspoke., She was already innocent. She didn't get before a judge jury or panel so she remained innocent.
I should have said "no evidence of her being guilty of anything was found".
Good catch
"So, she still must face a jury, at least."
For what crime. You think she is so powerful that during Trump presidency there wouldn't have been a prosecuter and a judge willing to have her stand trial if there was any shred of evidence? That several republican committees failed to find?
How are you not getting dizzy? I mean you keep climbing the ladder of stupidity, do you even see the ground anymore? Is there still oxygen at that altitude?
"I don’t mean to be funny, but what if Hillary were having a torrid affair with Comey? He ‘found her’ innocent."
You can't help it. You're stupid in a very hilarious manner
@zahlanzi saidWell, I and a top FBI lawyer think she needs to face charges, and be tried, see link. So it is you against this FBI lawyere (who was in the room, Zahlanzi...no one knows WHERE you are.
" That phrase is used when a panel, a judge, or a jury ‘finds’ someone to be innocent."
You are right. I misspoke., She was already innocent. She didn't get before a judge jury or panel so she remained innocent.
I should have said "no evidence of her being guilty of anything was found".
Good catch
"So, she still must face a jury, at least."
For what crime. You th ...[text shortened]... r with Comey? He ‘found her’ innocent."
You can't help it. You're stupid in a very hilarious manner
So, everyone vote, do you think the lawyer has a point, or is Zhalanzi to be reckoned with. I don't care to do your remedial research as to the many crimes, it is on google. Do you have a google? It was invented in the USA by Americans, and in use by companies like Apple, (AMERICAN) both of which you use everyday. Any inventions over there lately?
So tell us one more time. No action(s) by Hillary can be considered crimes. Say it, Zahlanzi.
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/430881-fbis-top-lawyer-believed-hillary-clinton-should-face-charges-but-was/
@zahlanzi saidOpinions of lawyers are worth exactly zero Joe
" That phrase is used when a panel, a judge, or a jury ‘finds’ someone to be innocent."
You are right. I misspoke., She was already innocent. She didn't get before a judge jury or panel so she remained innocent.
I should have said "no evidence of her being guilty of anything was found".
Good catch
"So, she still must face a jury, at least."
For what crime. You th ...[text shortened]... r with Comey? He ‘found her’ innocent."
You can't help it. You're stupid in a very hilarious manner
It’s the opinions of them prosecutors, jurors and judges you have to worry son
297d
@kevcvs57 saidBut it does not take a lawyer to say she destroyed evidence and government property, I will just use that one. You can look these crimes up in the library. Then you can easily apply the tenets of the law, the statue(s), to her actions, and , Voila! You will see that she committed crime.
Opinions of lawyers are worth exactly zero Joe
It’s the opinions of them prosecutors, jurors and judges you have to worry son
Anyway, you are way behind, everyone acknowledged the crimes. Note that an underling princple of law, right up there with Rights vs Privileges, is the notion of 'Intent'. They say that she had no intent, I wish I could give you their logic but I don't understand it myself.
So, what do you think?
297d
@sonhouse saidProve what? We don't know what you want AvJoe to prove. Do you not get that? Am I going to have to come down there and go over debate etiquette with you?
@AverageJoe1
PROVE IT ASSSHOLE.
297d
@earl-of-trumps saidSurely Sonhouse will get that. Good post, Earl. We will all witness Sonhouse's rapture!!
lol I love it.
The FBI head at the time, James Comey, said that Hilary Clinton lied to the FBI.
When Comey failed to charge HRC, he said that he didn't think he could prove that she knew what she was doing was wrong!!
So there ya, go. Democrat privilege.
296d
@averagejoe1 said"Well, I and a top FBI lawyer think she needs to face charges, and be tried"
Well, I and a top FBI lawyer think she needs to face charges, and be tried, see link. So it is you against this FBI lawyere (who was in the room, Zahlanzi...no one knows WHERE you are.
So, everyone vote, do you think the lawyer has a point, or is Zhalanzi to be reckoned with. I don't care to do your remedial research as to the many crimes, it is on google. Do y ...[text shortened]... com/opinion/white-house/430881-fbis-top-lawyer-believed-hillary-clinton-should-face-charges-but-was/
wow, you and a top fbi lawyer
You don't say. Well, I wish you and a top fbi lawyer good luck succeeding where all the rest of republicans failed.
"So, everyone vote, do you think the lawyer has a point, or is Zhalanzi to be reckoned with. "
Yes, everyone vote, this is how we prosecute people. By vote
" So tell us one more time. No action(s) by Hillary can be considered crimes. Say it, Zahlanzi."
None. Otherwise she would have been prosecuted by all the republicans drooling to get her. You found something new? Stop yapping and prosecute her.
Otherwise she is innocent. You know, that innocent until proven guilty inconvenience?
Ya dingbat
296d
@kevcvs57 saidheeey, it's not just a lawyer's opinion. Did you miss the part where he said it's his opinion too ? An fbi lawyer and an internet moron thinks Clinton should be prosecuted.
Opinions of lawyers are worth exactly zero Joe
It’s the opinions of them prosecutors, jurors and judges you have to worry son
What more do you need? Evidence? You're being absurd