Flynn was framed!!!

That's not what I recall Comey saying with respect to his conclusion that HillariousNoMore could not be prosecuted ...



Well, if we are going to get nitpicky which seems to be what you want to do for some reason, Comey did not say "could not be prosecuted", he said no "reasonable prosecutor" would prosecute her and he further explained that intent formed his opinion. Many others disagreed because in fact "intent" is never mentioned in the law but as you say, it is used extensively in the law even though it doesn't appear in the law.


.. what I recall Comey saying is that there was not evidence of actual intent on her part and that she could not be prosecuted without direct evidence of intent ...



And that is different than my explanation that her paranoia of people knowing her business is perhaps why she did what she did and there was no intent to break the law for some nefarious reason like colluding with a foreign government.


That is a pretty close paraphrase .... and my response today is the same as it was the moment I heard him making that ridiculous statement as though it were fact in law ...


And yet you have just gone on to explain how intent is used all the time. You seem to be contradicting yourself.


Every jury instruction in Federal court (whether civil or criminal) includes a charge to the jury containing an instruction and definition on "circumstantial evidence" that provides that the jurors do not have to have direct evidence to prove a fact, but they can find a fact based upon circumstances that would imply the fact existed ... again that's a fair paraphrase.


Which says absolutely nothing about intent so how does that apply here?


Given Comey's background and his own self-delusion of expertise:


He is a fucking liar. Originally Posted by LexusLover

On that we can agree but as one former prosecutor just said, proving he intended to lie might be a tall order. It's why Barr declined to prosecute McCabe, for now. Even though everybody knows McCabe lied, Barr thought the case wasn't strong enough meaning to me at least, he wasn't sure he could prove intent.

The level of "intent" does matter when assessing the level of the punishment for the alleged offense... Originally Posted by LexusLover

The standard around security is negligence, not carelessness as Comey attempted to opine. You can try testing the waters with that theory during a security clearance interview, but I don't see it resulting in one getting granted a clearance. Security doesn't like carelessness any more or less than it likes negligence. The whole point at play is whether you "compromise" either National security, i.e. information or yourself.

That's not what I recall Comey saying with respect to his conclusion that HillariousNoMore could not be prosecuted ... He is a fucking liar. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Uhhhmm, no. As I recall, he was fired for "lacking candor" at the Federal Bureau of Matters, along with another 20 candor lackers in the FBI chain of command beneath him.

The standard around security is negligence, not carelessness as Comey attempted to opine. You can try testing the waters with that theory during a security clearance interview, but I don't see it resulting in one getting granted a clearance. Security doesn't like carelessness any more or less than it likes negligence. The whole point at play is whether you "compromise" either National security, i.e. information or yourself. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Wait! Are you pretending to lecture me on "security clearances"?

We are talking about a prosecution for criminal behavior!

Not a "security clearance" interview!

Is there any particular reason you want to change the topic?

Uhhhmm, no. As I recall, he was fired for "lacking candor" at the Federal Bureau of Matters, along with another 20 candor lackers in the FBI chain of command beneath him. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

I wasn't talking about "firings" .... I was talking about Comey's bullshit reason for making a FINDING that HillariousNoMore could not be prosecuted for any crime she committed for concealing and/or destroying evidence and/or lying to investigating agents.

He lied about it. It wasn't any "lack of candor"!

Same offense for which Martha Stewart was prosecuted!

Can't argue with that. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Sure can.

Don Jr. did not solicit. He was offered and more importantly, setup, intentionally.

Yes it was offered and as soon as he said "Yeah, I'd like to have that", he solicited it. If it was dropped on his desk with no comment by either party, that would not be solicitation. Do you think accepting the offer of sex from a street walker isn't going to get you a charge of solicitation?

Solicit:

to try to obtain

It could easily be presented as as "he tried to obtain it"

Apologies, but we may have to request the Mods to give 2 demerits to your Social Score on a Provider board for not understanding basic solicitation rules.

The short version is: The first one to mention price looses.

So I stop at a traffic light and a "provider" asks; Hey Baby, you looking for a good time and I say something like; Hey, Baby, what do you mean or even maybe? Anyone guilty of solicitation? I say; you look fine ad all but I doubt you're a genetic female. Anyone guilty of solicitation? She pops her top and says; how about these fine tattas? Anyone guilty of solicitation? I say; pfffftttsss, anyone can get those for $500 from a doctor. Anyone guilty of solicitation? She pulls up the skirt and says; you can't get one of these from a doctor? Anyone guilty of solicitation? I respond; what pink panties? You can get them at Walmart. Anyone guilty of solicitation? She pulls them aside to show she's sporting a nicely trimmed landing strip. Anyone guilty of solicitation? Then I say; you probably got your winky tucked and tied. Anyone guilty of solicitation? She then whips out her 9 inch schlong and says; You couldn't even handle this anyway sucka and storms off. Anyone guilty of solicitation?

There was a lengthy and tedious conversation, with potential objectives and motives circulating about. Clearly, she/it wasn't a cop, even though she never offered a requested donation amount and I wasn't a customer, as I never asked about price. Quoting from the Washington Compost, aka Bezo's Gazette, or Bloomingburger doesn't change the facts. They can speculate, aka project, all day long and that's just what they do.

Wait! Are you pretending to lecture me on "security clearances"?

We are talking about a prosecution for criminal behavior!

Not a "security clearance" interview!

Is there any particular reason you want to change the topic? Originally Posted by LexusLover

It is a well defined crime to be grossly negligent. Which oddly enough, means even slightly negligent. And if you pretend or otherwise know anything about security clearances, you know it. You either are negligent or you are not, regardless of your intent. My guess is that YOU know it, while I believe others do not.

I wasn't talking about "firings" .... I was talking about Comey's bullshit reason for making a FINDING that HillariousNoMore could not be prosecuted for any crime she committed for concealing and/or destroying evidence and/or lying to investigating agents.

He lied about it. It wasn't any "lack of candor"!

Same offense for which Martha Stewart was prosecuted! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Comey was fired for lack of candor. Making up grotesque distortions of law are similar to if not defining lack of candor. To use your terms, Comey is a lieing PoS and got fired for it. And, he knows his pecker is hanging over a 45 Horse powered chipper.

Link to an example? It should be easy if it has happened dozens of times. If I am proven factually wrong, I will admit it. I try to make it doesn't happen but I'm human. I don't claim I haven't made mistakes but I will only admit I'm wrong if proven wrong.

In the case of this thread/post, I provided a link that backed up what I said.
It's funny/tragic when a person backs a narrative that relies on falsehoods, misinformation, misrepresentation, or the omission of content or context. Especially when a person tries to eliminate information based on their own bias. All sources should be judged by each individual claim. If someone uses redstate as a source, I should be able to point out any inaccuracies in any given story. If it has any. So I read it more closely. If bias is my only bitch about it, it's not worth arguing about. Because bias doesn't change facts. It's opinion. So when I see something questionable fact wise, I might argue that.

I don't spend the time on here that you do. If I have said you are ignorant or lying or both, then I posted a link backing that up. In cases where I've already provided a link on a subject, I may or may not provide a second one.
I don't expect anyone to blindly accept anything I say. That's why I include links to back up what I say.

Just claiming something without backing it up is gum flapping.

Here it is. A chance to score real credibility points. Do you have a link to posts I've been proven factually wrong?

what for? i've done that dozens of times here. you'll just claim i'm lying or ignorant or both. you get proved wrong over and over and yet you won't admit it. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

WYID - "The Washington Compost" - one I have not previously seen.
j66 needs to be informed!

Well done!

Of course you can't debate with me. Your position is based solely on your "opinion". Your opinion you take as fact. Give us a detailed description of the positions your fdtsp person would have and we'll compare that to positions people have posted.
We all know you won't. Without your acronym, you're just another dumbassed trumpy making stuff up

Your reality can't co-exist with a source like the WaPo. You hate it because trump can't control it. You hate it because they kept track of all of trump's lies. You mainly hate it because you can't prove them wrong (disclaimer: all corrections are posted at the end of the story they were in. They don't hide the corrections). You claim to be a conservative. You aren't. You're just a trumpy.

If you went to your "medical meeting" and claimed WaPo was inaccurate and had so much propaganda as to make the content unreliable, without providing any detailed examples to back up your claim, there would be stunned silence due to the degree that your Dunning-Kruger effect placed upon your life.

Now you'll come back with your typical, non-debatable, opinions. You'll name-call while claiming you aren't and make general statements based on your opinions that you pretend are facts.

You're still butt-hurt about the trump drug's lack of FDA approval, from being called out, proven wrong about after doubling down on your wrong answer, and the fact the info was in the WaPo article you were slamming.
That's why I confirmed my position with a memo from the FDA.

Cannot debate with fascist DPST's like blue Meanie- they are too divorced from reality in the hatred and propaganda fixation to respond with anything other than name-calling and scatology.

and WaPo propaganda! Originally Posted by oeb11

Blue meanie is on Ignore!!!

Sure can.
I said "can't argue that" to this statement.

It was all about power. From power comes monetary gain. EX: No power (she lost) Clinton Foundation (no more donations). She couldn't care less about hurting anyone at any time or place - if it gives her power.

If you don't believe that, I'd like to hear your counter argument.


Apologies, but we may have to request the Mods to give 2 demerits to your Social Score on a Provider board for not understanding basic solicitation rules.

The short version is: The first one to mention price looses.

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

I concede your point about a fee being accepted by either party but in my defense I was thinking that when the guy said I accept, he had agreed to the fee.


But since there was no fee discussed in the Jr. case, my analogy was a poor one. Solicitation in the Jr. case was clearly different than in a prostitution case.


I still believe that "trying to obtain" would be the controlling act in the Jr. case. When he accepted the offer even without a fee being discussed, he was trying to obtain information that could not legally be accepted. I think in reading what Mueller had to say about it, he made it clear that Jr. probably didn't know he was breaking the law and therefore didn't have the intent to break the law. Again as with Comey, he surely knew that intent did not appear in this statute and could have prosecuted Jr. saying it didn't matter whether he intended to break the law or not, he broke it by trying to obtain, soliciting, the information. That's my amateur lawyer argument and I'm sticking to it.



Now on intent. While I agree that intent is not written in the law, there is no doubt in my mind that some prosecutors and some judges believe it to be there and will state it openly as I believe I proved. If Comey or any other prosecutor decides they will evaluate intent whether it is clearly stated in the law or not, there isn't much you or I can do about it other than give an opinion to the contrary.

Comey was fired for lack of candor. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Why do you keep inserting why Comey was fired? Who gives 2 shits?

That has NOTHING to do with Flynn's predicament.

If Flynn and Martha Stewart can get burned for lying to Federal investigators, then so can HillariousNoMore. To attempt a distinction is ignorant, unless the person drawing the distinction knows better, but just wants to excuse the misconduct.

Comey was fired for lack of candor. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

I don't recall that reason being given at the time. I think you're conflating Comey's firing with Andrew McCabe's. McCabe was originally accused of "lack of candor" in IG Horowitz's report published in April 2017, just before Comey was fired by Trump. McCabe wasn't fired until March 2018.

As a side note, Andrew McCabe isn't just an ordinary liar... he's a smooth, practiced, egregious liar. In the Fall of 2016, he instructed an FBI subordinate to leak to the WSJ that the FBI was investigating the Clinton Foundation. After the story was published, he berated agents in the FBI's DC and New York offices, demanding that they find and punish the leaker. He feigned indignation to throw internal FBI investigators off his trail. Eventually the agent he instructed to leak fessed up. McCabe initially denied giving the order, then reversed himself.

Maybe the next time Dickmuncher is watching McCabe opine on CNN (where McCabe now works) he'll recall what a practiced and professional liar McCabe is. Munchy always whines about trumpy's so-called lies. But what the fuck, when it comes to telling whoppers, trumpy is light-years behind those lifelong swamp dwellers McCabe, Comey, Clapper, Brennan, Rice, et al.

https://nypost.com/2020/01/02/andrew...rnal-leak/amp/