Prez is just an actor anyways...has been since reagan...a mouthpiece with no morals
That had nothing to do with what I said...
She still wasn't guilty. Language matters.
If lack of criminal intent means no prosecution, then no prosecution means she wasn't guilty.
Being 'unfit for office' is a matter of opinion. Our current President fits that description in my opinion. But I recognize it is my (and many others') opinion.
I was talking about her comment. Not yours.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
I don't doubt you have a good point to make but...Just look at@Splinty's Hillary posts,
Can't use that as knock when it's in a @Readily Formed Voltron thread about The View.
Yallniggaspostingatrollthread.jpg
M
member 3289
Guest
Prob 70% of the country at this point.
of course language matters. What she was guilty of was not, in the opinion of the FBI Director, not an offense that could be prosecuted in the courts.
It's also hard to prove intent when you give everyone around the guilty party immunity from prosecution. But that's just my opinion.
It's also my opinion, and the opinion of lots of other people with fancy law degrees, that she could be prosecuted without explicit evidence of intent. It's also a commonly held opinion that the opinion of the FBI Director has no place in this discussion, and his airing of it was without precedent.
M
member 3289
Guest
Which court of law found her guilty of this?
guilt·y
ˈɡiltē/
adjective
@Readily Formed Voltron
ˈɡiltē/
adjective
- culpable of or responsible for a specified wrongdoing.
"the police will soon discover who the guilty party is"
synonyms: culpable, to blame, at fault, in the wrong, blameworthy, responsible; More
- justly chargeable with a particular fault or error.
"she was guilty of a serious error of judgment"
- justly chargeable with a particular fault or error.
@Readily Formed Voltron
So is tweeting out classified national secrets......
Last edited:
just because something is true, doesn't mean it's relevant.
M
member 3289
Guest
I'm biased obviously but I thought she did a fantastic job:
View: https://youtu.be/XQ4wcnvPsSg
View: https://youtu.be/pcxXyZKaRtA
View: https://youtu.be/rJYRFKyfvM0
View: https://youtu.be/XQ4wcnvPsSg
View: https://youtu.be/pcxXyZKaRtA
View: https://youtu.be/rJYRFKyfvM0
based on the 'WTF' ratings from
@KWingJitsu and @Readily Formed Voltron, I'm going to have to explain this...1) The POTUS decides what is classified. It is legally impossible for the POTUS to reveal classified information, because by definition if the POTUS reveals information that information is not classified. So the POTUS can never be 'guilty', in the legal or ethical sense, of revealing classified information.
2) Even if that was not the case, you can't legitimize Hillary's behavior by pointing out same or worse behavior from another person. That is a "tu quoque" logical fallacy.
1) Translation: "POTUS cannot commit a crime."based on the 'WTF' ratings from
1) The POTUS decides what is classified. It is legally impossible for the POTUS to reveal classified information, because by definition if the POTUS reveals information that information is not classified. So the POTUS can never be 'guilty', in the legal or ethical sense, of revealing classified information.
2) Even if that was not the case, you can't legitimize Hillary's behavior by pointing out same or worse behavior from another person. That is a "tu quoque" logical fallacy.
2) "you can't legitimize
You can't make that quote and be self-aware of the double standard of making that quote.....
Was Hillary the president when she did It?1) Translation: "POTUS cannot commit a crime."
2) "you can't legitimizeHillaryTrump's behavior by pointing out same or worse behavior from another person. That is a "tu quoque" logical fallacy."
You can't make that quote and be self-aware of the double standard of making that quote.....
Legally speaking, there's a difference.
No there isn't because his first premise is a fallacy. Of course the POTUS can commit a crime.
1) Technically, the POTUS can pardon himself of any crime of which he is accused. A reasonable and unbiased person might say that pardoning Joe Arpaio was Trump setting a precedent for issuing a pardon before sentencing. And according to the prevailing consensus of Constitutional scholars, the President may be removed from office, but he cannot be indicted. The President can commit a crime, and he would be guilty of committing the crime, but he would be exempt from being convicted of the crime. Words have meaning - you can be guilty without being convicted. See also: Hillary Clinton email.1) Translation: "POTUS cannot commit a crime."
2) "you can't legitimizeHillaryTrump's behavior by pointing out same or worse behavior from another person. That is a "tu quoque" logical fallacy."
You can't make that quote and be self-aware of the double standard of making that quote.....
2) I have never legitimized or even defended Trump's behavior. And if I did, I would NEVER try to use the virtue of Hillary Clinton as my basis. That's like nailing your coffin shut from the inside.