President Trump Fires James Comey

a reply to: introvert

Intent is not a requirement and constantly repeating it doesnt make it true.

The standard is gross negligence. The intent bs was used to get her out of charges.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert

I'm not outraged either. I just want to know if it was for a damned good reason. So far, that does not appear to be the case. The best reason I have seen so far is "because he can".

But he doesn't need a good reason or any reason.

That's not good enough for me. I like to know why.

As mentioned earlier, he is not a dictator, so it is reasonable to ask why he did what he did.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: face23785

There is no past legal precedence of someone doing what she did.

True. What she did would not see the inside of a court unless intent could be proven. The legal precedence we do have proves that.

You came to your conclusions because you're politically biased. You can throw all the terms around you want, the only way you can be informed on the subject and think she didn't need to be charged is if you're biased.

You're talking out of your ass. I bet you could not even tell me, or anyone else, what political ideology I subscribe to.

An Army Private with a Secret clearance knows better than to do what she did, and she had 30 years experience in and around government, some as a Senator so she was well aware of what she was allowed to do with classified. That alone proves intent.

No it doesn't. Perhaps you do not understand intent and how is has to be proven.

So yeah run and hide because I accused you of being a Clinton supporter, that's fine.

What an odd thing to say. I'm right here responding accordingly. Perhaps you should try those tactics on someone dumb enough to be baited by them.

You can claim I am a Clinton supporter all you wish. Doesn't change the fact I am on record as not being a supporter and it doesn't change the fact that you claiming I am does not help your argument.

In other words, argue the points and stop making dumb accusations.

Intent is considered in minor violations. What she did was a major breach of national security. And as I stated, intent was obvious because it's just not realistic that someone with her extensive experience, including holding a security clearance in the Senate to receive classified briefings, would not know she couldn't do that. It's not nuanced, it's not easy to make a mistake just misunderstanding some obscure clause, it's black and white that what she did was highly illegal and there's no way she wasn't aware of it.

And yes I know you're still here, despite 2 proclamations that you couldn't continue to argue with me because of my immaturity or something, another *gasp* personal attack that you found so offensive when I did it to you. So you are not only a hypocrite but a liar as well because you do indeed continue to argue and continue to be wrong.

a reply to: queenofswords

The nail in the coffin, for me, was Stonetear and the timing of the FBI investigation document dump that *poof* explained all of it.

I'd be interested in any of your thoughts on him, too, if you ever want to share.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: TheRedneck

Trump so far has done more in 100 days in the white house that Obama did in 8 years and that is not counting how he screw the nation.

I'd rather not see this thread get derailed, but I will say you're going to be rather hard pressed to truly prove that.

a reply to: face23785

I did not insinuate anything. What I has posted was in the form of a question.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert

I'm not outraged either. I just want to know if it was for a damned good reason. So far, that does not appear to be the case. The best reason I have seen so far is "because he can".

But he doesn't need a good reason or any reason.

That's not good enough for me. I like to know why.

As mentioned earlier, he is not a dictator, so it is reasonable to ask why he did what he did.

and he is not required to explain his reasons... Dont like it, vote for someone else.

I feel the same about Clinton refusing to make her speeches available.

a reply to: introvert

I'd like to know why Obama's short form birth certificate bears a fraudulent debossed seal instead of the requisite official embossed seal. But I am never going to get that answer because...well, it was *cough* racist to even want an answer.

He was protected from scrutiny.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: face23785

I did not insinuate anything. What I has posted was in the form of a question.

No you insinuated.. Reread your post.. You asked your "question" and then your next line answered it.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: introvert

Intent is not a requirement and constantly repeating it doesnt make it true.

The standard is gross negligence. The intent bs was used to get her out of charges.

Of course that's what you think. You have no clue what you are talking about. Comey made it clear and we have yet to find one case in which someone was charged without showing direct intent or action to prove intent.

If you can, please provide an example in which someone was charged without having intent.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: face23785

I did not insinuate anything. What I has posted was in the form of a question.

Yeah sarcastically asked and answered and now can't even own up to it. So hypocrite, liar, and now passive-aggressive coward. Anything else?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Thought it was quite telling when Comey was grilled by the intelligence committee and Comey got cornered into saying that if anyone violated the terms of their immunity agreement, then said agreement was null and void only to have it spelled out to him plainly how Combetta did indeed violate the terms of his immunity agreement after it was granted.

That exchange right there told me all I needed to know about former director Comey.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: introvert

I'd like to know why Obama's short form birth certificate bears a fraudulent debossed seal instead of the requisite official embossed seal. But I am never going to get that answer because...well, it was *cough* racist to even want an answer.

He was protected from scrutiny.

Really? A birther argument here too? Seriously, let's move on.

Comey has long history of cases ending favorable to Clintons

Anybody that remember Comey from back in 2004 as a deputy attorney general in the Justice Department,

Remember Sandy Berger.

He also took millions from one of Clinton Foundation corporate partner’s board along with his brother.

So he was a very careful when he was investigating the Hillary because of his ties.

He was corrupted by the Clintons association.

a reply to: face23785

Intent is considered in minor violations. What she did was a major breach of national security. And as I stated, intent was obvious because it's just not realistic that someone with her extensive experience, including holding a security clearance in the Senate to receive classified briefings, would not know she couldn't do that. It's not nuanced, it's not easy to make a mistake just misunderstanding some obscure clause, it's black and white that what she did was highly illegal and there's no way she wasn't aware of it.

I'll ask the same of you as I did another. Please provide an example as precedence.

And yes I know you're still here, despite 2 proclamations that you couldn't continue to argue with me because of my immaturity or something, another *gasp* personal attack that you found so offensive when I did it to you. So you are not only a hypocrite but a liar as well because you do indeed continue to argue and continue to be wrong.

I wasn't offended. You're wasting my time. Your debate approach is not only logically-fallacious, but immature.

Grow up and come talk to me with some maturity. We can agree or disagree and that's fine, but don't waste my time with such nonsense.

a reply to: introvert

Violation of National Security is one of the few laws, as I understand it, that does not need intent for a conviction.

In any case, this idea of innocence or guilt based on intent is a red herring anyway. Intent is supposed to be used in sentencing, not in guilt or innocence findings. Guilt or innocence of an act does not require intent to establish, but the degree of needed punishment may have a huge bearing on sentencing. It does not matter if someone intended to commit a crime if they committed that crime; physical facts are not dependent on mental state. It does matter whether or not they intended to in deciding if they deserve capital punishment or a slap on the wrist.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Gandalf77

For what, those that are blind to their believes will never accept anything.

So I don't even bother.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Good to see you posting, J&C!

The Stonetear incident was painful to behold!

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert

I'm not outraged either. I just want to know if it was for a damned good reason. So far, that does not appear to be the case. The best reason I have seen so far is "because he can".

But he doesn't need a good reason or any reason.

That's not good enough for me. I like to know why.

As mentioned earlier, he is not a dictator, so it is reasonable to ask why he did what he did.

and he is not required to explain his reasons... Dont like it, vote for someone else.

I feel the same about Clinton refusing to make her speeches available.

That's correct. I still have the right to ask for an explanation and discuss it openly on this forum.

a reply to: Gandalf77

Gee, sorry to have answered someone's questions and troubled you.


ETA: And that, right there, is why I cannot muster any outrage for you guys.