Pretty sure Bill Clinton's doodles prove Guccifer hacked into Hillary's server.

Obviously, this is how people can support Hillary.

Since she has never been convicted of a crime, she has always been innocent, or they will have you believe.

Funny, but Bush has never been convicted of a crime, but many here have tried and convicted him.

hahahahahahahaha

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: introvert

Al Capone had also never been convicted of any crime up until his tax evasion trial which was his undoing, but EVERYONE KNEW OF HIS RENOWNED CRIMINALITY WITHOUT ANY PRIOR CONVICTIONS.

See how that works now? Get educated

It's funny that you tell me to get educated, yet you continue to use logical fallacies and irrelevant correlations.

Hillary Clinton has not been convicted of a crime. To call her a criminal is a lie.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Bush is not a criminal either.

originally posted by: UKTruth
This Guccifer guy better watch out he doesn't have a strange accident.
Maybe he will go away with some cash and his freedom.

Maybe he will have an accident too, or get suicided.

I would be extremely careful if I where him, and pray that was enough....

a reply to: introvert

Yes you did. You said she was "a woman of such renowned criminality".

She has never been convicted of a crime.

Many renown criminals have not been convicted, yet the user NoCorruptionAllowed, never claimed, Hilley was a convicted criminal.

Silly word games, what's the point to this?

All things considered, it's pretty hilarious (no pun) that such a big deal has been made over this when we all know damn well that politicians (as a general rule) are as dirty as the come and every damn one of them have probably done far worse than this. If this is the worst dirt they have on Hillary, it's pretty shocking that she's this clean.

originally posted by: AlaskanDad

a reply to: introvert

Yes you did. You said she was "a woman of such renowned criminality".

She has never been convicted of a crime.

Many renown criminals have not been convicted, yet the user NoCorruptionAllowed, never claimed, Hilley was a convicted criminal.

Silly word games, what's the point to this?

The point is that people are making claims they cannot prove.

Can you prove she committed a crime?

Of course you can't. If it could be proven, she'd already be in jail.

a reply to: AlaskanDad

Here's a good video explaining many Clinton criminal activities and "acquittal corruption"

Hillary Clinton: A Career Criminal

a reply to: xuenchen

Ah, yes.

You show the depth of thought it takes to deem someone a criminal.

Youtube is how you educate yourselves.

a reply to: AlaskanDad

Silly word games, what's the point to this?

The point would be to drag the subject of the thread out of sight and out of mind.
Stupid facts get in the way.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: xuenchen

Ah, yes.

You show the depth of thought it takes to deem someone a criminal.

Youtube is how you educate yourselves.

Prove anything stated in that video is false then if you are really serious about it.

Everyone is waiting... (forever)...

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: xuenchen

Ah, yes.

You show the depth of thought it takes to deem someone a criminal.

Youtube is how you educate yourselves.

Sure, attack the source and immediately discredit.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: xuenchen

Ah, yes.

You show the depth of thought it takes to deem someone a criminal.

Youtube is how you educate yourselves.

Prove anything stated in that video is false then if you are really serious about it.

Everyone is waiting... (forever)...

Not going to waste my time.

I believe in the constitutional principles of due process and innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. When she has her day in court for that which she is accused of, and is convicted, I will call her a criminal. Until then, the burden of proof is on those doing the accusing.

It's very sad that there are so many that do not uphold constitutional principles and judge based on emotions and youtube videos.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: xuenchen

Ah, yes.

You show the depth of thought it takes to deem someone a criminal.

Youtube is how you educate yourselves.

Sure, attack the source and immediately discredit.

Youtube is not a source.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: xuenchen

Ah, yes.

You show the depth of thought it takes to deem someone a criminal.

Youtube is how you educate yourselves.

Prove anything stated in that video is false then if you are really serious about it.

Everyone is waiting... (forever)...

Not going to waste my time.

I believe in the constitutional principles of due process and innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. When she has her day in court for that which she is accused of, I will call her a criminal. Until then, the burden of proof is on those doing the accusing.

It's very sad that there are so many that do not uphold constitutional principles and judge based on emotions and youtube videos.

It's true that she can not be said to be guilty (at least not with any authority) until she is convicted.
However, this is a forum where views are expressed and it's not always reasonable to expect everyone to speak in legal definitions.

In the end it looks like it will be the 'court of the worldwide opinion' where Hillary is tried. All of this is going to be turned into easy to understand language and played over and over again to not just the US, but the world, until the election is over. No stone will be left unturned (pardon the pun)

a reply to: UKTruth

So you guys are going to hide behind the conspiracy excuse.

Figures.

If it can't be proven...it's a conspiracy.

Spare me the bull#.

a reply to: butcherguy. Then eventually have it shut down...next!

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: xuenchen

Ah, yes.

You show the depth of thought it takes to deem someone a criminal.

Youtube is how you educate yourselves.

Prove anything stated in that video is false then if you are really serious about it.

Everyone is waiting... (forever)...

Not going to waste my time.

I believe in the constitutional principles of due process and innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. When she has her day in court for that which she is accused of, and is convicted, I will call her a criminal. Until then, the burden of proof is on those doing the accusing.

It's very sad that there are so many that do not uphold constitutional principles and judge based on emotions and youtube videos.

this is just getting started, introvert.....we here on ATS will be getting mega-doses of this....it's what the right does, they feed off each other, where repetition of hyperbolic insinuations, and conclusions, keep their voters in a constant state of rage. that's why you have voters for trump that say "America is going down the toilet" (my paraphrase), when there is actual data supporting the opposite

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

So you guys are going to hide behind the conspiracy excuse.

Figures.

If it can't be proven...it's a conspiracy.

Spare me the bull#.

No, a conspiracy is something different.

I am saying that Trump's campaign is going to tell all these stories in a way that leaves it to people's judgement, not the courts. It's no different to what Clinton will do to Trump.
It's going to be very messy.
One thing is for sure, neither of them will be able to hide behind the definitions of a legal conviction.
People will be making their own minds up.

a reply to: jimmyx

I remember when this site's motto used to be deny ignorance. People round here took pride in doing collaborative research and finding the truths behind certain topics.

Now it appears the new motto should be 'embrace ignorance', because that is what people do around here. Research is dead and all we seem to see is cut and paste nuttery.