kill your assumptions
So no talking about it on discussion boards until the trial is completed?
Ring ring. Hillary’s calling.
Oh wait, Hillary has never even had an indictment even after investigation after investigation.
I’m gleefully awaiting trial for these 2 bit cons, criminals, thugs, grifters. Shame on them and their nasty schemes.
…and if you’re honest, you have to wonder why that is?
Smyrna: JayJay:If
Bam…now ya got it.
The rest of it is still irrelevant.
Like I said, it was one of the weirdest posts you’ve ever written.
The indictment against the guy doesn’t look good…who cares whether at this moment he can’t make love to his “gorgeous wife”?
If it ends up he’s innocent that will be rectified.
And, they were grifting money to her, for work she knew she wasn’t doing, from a charity she knew that they were telling the marks that they “wouldn’t be taking a dime from” nor “not one penny”. Nasty!
I hope she gets her day in court too.
Well first you have to have evidence and then get an indictment. The difference is they didn’t have that.
It’s crazy how that gets overlooked
DOLOOP:Lock her up.
All I wanted then too…was a trial…based on the evidence but she was treated…differently than in this case.
Ummmm. No. You posited that she’s guilty. Even before an indictment.
Comey wrote Hillary’s exoneration at the beginning of the investigation. Do you think Mueller did the same for Trump? Do you think Mueller ever had any intent to? The two investigations are at polar opposite ends of the universe and the real kicker is, Hillary committed multiple crimes.
char
Any reasonable person must agree that Hillary’s crimes were indictable charges? The she “didn’t intend” to break the law is past ridiculous and to the point, I label it criminal. It clearly showed a two-tiered system of justice that both you and I should be appalled about. I am…how about you?
LucyLou:Ring ring. Hillary’s calling.
Oh wait, Hillary has never even had an indictment even after investigation after investigation.
I’m gleefully awaiting trial for these 2 bit cons, criminals, thugs, grifters. Shame on them and their nasty schemes.
Exactly. Zero indictments after investigation after investigation by Republicans.
BTW, not the topic of this thread. Looks like slop.
LucyLou:Ring ring. Hillary’s calling.
Oh wait, Hillary has never even had an indictment even after investigation after investigation.
I’m gleefully awaiting trial for these 2 bit cons, criminals, thugs, grifters. Shame on them and their nasty schemes.
…and if you’re honest, you have to wonder why that is?
FBI chief grilled over Clinton emails - YouTube
Bill Barr is on top of it I’m sure
Yeah destruction of HDs and electronics is routine in government and industry. I just did about $60K worth of CNC work for a startup that built a machine that does it automatically and recovers the parts worth salvaging. Ordinarily there’s too much labor involved but this sucker does it automatically. Fun to watch.
Exactly. Zero indictments
After listening to the evidence in that video and you can still stand by your assertion is the very definition of being sheoplized.
LucyLou:Exactly. Zero indictments
After listening to the evidence in that video and you can still stand by your assertion is the very definition of being sheoplized.
Ironic.
JayJay: Smyrna: JayJay:If
Bam…now ya got it.
The rest of it is still irrelevant.
Like I said, it was one of the weirdest posts you’ve ever written.
The indictment against the guy doesn’t look good…who cares whether at this moment he can’t make love to his “gorgeous wife”?
If it ends up he’s innocent that will be rectified.
And, they were grifting money to her, for work she knew she wasn’t doing, from a charity she knew that they were telling the marks that they “wouldn’t be taking a dime from” nor “not one penny”. Nasty!
I hope she gets her day in court too.
Asset seizure. Anything aquired through fraudulent means should be confiscated. Take that silicon back or arrest her for accepting stolen property
The problem is they watch YouTube vids and cable news and think they’re getting info or doing “research”.
Nope, just being used.
You think you already know for sure, what is not yet proven and there lies our difference of opinions
It is however a fact that an federal indictment means a conviction 90% of the time.
Allan
LucyLou:Exactly. Zero indictments
After listening to the evidence in that video and you can still stand by your assertion
Bill Barr obviously does
DOLOOP:Ummmm. No. You were convinced she’s guilty. Even before an indictment.
Blah, blah. blah. Handwaving.
Not trial by a jury of her peers.
DiffeRent somehow.
Blah, blah.
The reality is that we are a free country. We are all free to assess available evidence and make our own judgements about someone’s relative guilt or innocence as long as we are not acting on behalf of the government. The available evidence is this case is strong.
However, expect to be called on it when you reserve this right for yourself but hope to shout down others with some ■■■■■■■■ argument about folks deserving to wait for a trial before anybody expresses an opinion when you won’t do that yourself.
Yeah…I know.
That was the day before. Not the day the innocent were gassed.
Still no empathy?
Allan
Blah, blah. blah. Handwaving.
That describes your approach…perfectly. Thanks for sharing.
That was the day before. Not the day the innocent were gassed.
Ahhhhhhh…at least you’re consistent…it’s different…amirite?