Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If it were all true, there would be actual evidence that even a bunch of investigating republicans might have stumbled over.
Indeed, and meanwhile we have at least one accusation against Trump of sexual assault, backed up by six outcry witnesses (six times as many as legally required to turn the accusation into evidence, in a court of law, if the statute of limitations had not already expired). So that's checkmate: There is no evidence of criminal activity by Clinton, and more than enough evidence of criminal activity by Trump.
You know it. You just don't want to believe it.... that she would leak data in a back handed way to our enemies. Remember her goal has nothing to do with protecting and preserving the USA. A foundation funded by muslim countries, an absent FBI director, a attorney general who flaunts the law and lastly her desire to change the shape of the 2nd amendment....
No, you said swapping intelligence secrets.
Who is she swapping them with? What secrets has she swapped?
No, you said swapping intelligence secrets. Who is she swapping them with? What secrets has she swapped?
You won't get an answer that has a shred of evidence behind it. It's just propaganda intended to assuage Alt-right depression and dupe weak-minded sycophants into making bad choices.
Indeed, and meanwhile we have at least one accusation against Trump of sexual assault, backed up by six outcry witnesses (six times as many as legally required to turn the accusation into evidence, in a court of law, if the statute of limitations had not already expired). So that's checkmate: There is no evidence of criminal activity by Clinton, and more than enough evidence of criminal activity by Trump.
Actually there's plenty of evidence had the law AS WRITTEN been followed. But alas, it was not as Comey added "intent" to a statute where it did not/does not exist.
Unless of course you can show where it's written into the statute?
Actually there's plenty of evidence had the law AS WRITTEN been followed.
Wrong! The "law AS WRITTEN" outlines both the parameters of jurisprudence (which you've made clear you don't understand properly) and that of due process (which has been observed, and resulted in the opposite conclusion from the one you are trying to claim).
Jim: Do some investigation work:
1) What is the proof of the means of the crime you allege?
2) What is the proof of the motive of the crime you allege?
3) What is the proof of the opportunity of the crime you allege?
If you cannot provide all three sets of proof, unequivocal - in other words, not your "opinion of proof" but actual real objective evidence of proof - then you have failed Jurisprudence 101.
Outright lie most likely, and definitively an assertion without proof.
Outright lie most likely, and definitively an assertion without proof.
Misrepresentation at best; overt prevarication most likely, and definitively an assertion for which the proof shows clearly the statement's indefensible deception.
Outright lie most likely, and definitively an assertion without proof.
Outright lie most likely, and definitively an assertion without proof.
That should give you a pretty good scale of the depth of corruption he has to confront. Back room deals on hotels compared to swapping intelligence secrets? C'mon; get real.
Now you are telling nothing but bold face lies.Like Trump.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.