Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

12 Russian Intelligence Officials Indicted On Hacking Charges

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post



    The IG report doesn't establish the law.
    It is a "report". It isn't a "Decision" that can be relied upon.
    And if you knew what "willfulness and wantonness" meant you wouldn't have used that phrase, but you might want to look at my previous post. I explain it.

    I don't read "right wing" sites for my legal information.
    I actually practice law. If you did, you wouldn't keep providing quotes that say the opposite of what you think they do.


    Perhaps it is time for me to look for the ignore function.


    The IG examined how the prosecutors interpreted the law in order to draw the line of "gross negligence" and decide if somebody who has mishandled classified information crossed it or not! And the IG report (which apparently you never browsed) presented the legal cases that were used by the prosecutors in their decision to draw this "gross negligence line". EQUALLY important is that the IG showed that this "gross negligence line" was not drawn for Clinton specifically to give her a "pass" as you have told us here. The definition of gross negligence was the same for Clinton and for the people who were investigated by the FBI BEFORE CLINTON for mishandling classified information. And it was the examination of the FBI's interpretations and practices that guided the IG report towards a resolution that there was no preferential treatment during the FBI investigation of Clinton.

    Thus, I take the IG report by real legal experts who examined legal facts and real legal cases to substantiate their opinion that Clinton did not receive preferential treatment by the FBI ANYTIME over posts by anonymous internet legal experts like you who try to present their uninformed opinion as valid and accurate interpretation of the law without providing a single specific piece of legal evidence and without presenting a single specific legal precedent that supports their view. And the fact that you told me in another thread the you are an expert in the bail bonds (which does not require a law degree), harms your credentials as a practitioner of law. A bondsman is not a legal "expert"

    You can do whatever you want with the ignore function, but were not you the one who had a good time and laugh just a few posts before? I have no problem to keep entertaining you. Why such a sudden change of mood? Does this mean that it is more difficult to substantiate your "legal" opinion than what you thought when you were laughing?
    Last edited by pamak; 22 Jul 18, 11:50.
    My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

    Comment


    • Originally posted by pamak View Post

      Now keep trying to learn the law through the partisan sites you are visiting, and entertain us with your "expertise"
      You have been told what the law is by one who actually is familiar with it and you have been told how it is by one who actually enforces it....You have been told that the IG's Report is just that...It is not a charging document, but a report...You have been told and explained in detail that intent is not relevant...You choose to ignore, then claim we are taking the law from partisan sites...Onr could only come to the conclusion, you are a middle school child..If not I aplogize..Then, the only conclusion that could be drawn is your an IDIOT....(BOLD MINE)...

      Mr. Salinator, I apologize but you even have to come to the same conclusion....The ignore system not working is my excuse/defense, I keep getting trolled in...So its not my intent to be arbitrary but negligent non the less....

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Darth Holliday View Post

        You have been told what the law is by one who actually is familiar with it and you have been told how it is by one who actually enforces it....You have been told that the IG's Report is just that...It is not a charging document, but a report...You have been told and explained in detail that intent is not relevant...You choose to ignore, then claim we are taking the law from partisan sites...Onr could only come to the conclusion, you are a middle school child..If not I aplogize..Then, the only conclusion that could be drawn is your an IDIOT....(BOLD MINE)...

        Mr. Salinator, I apologize but you even have to come to the same conclusion....The ignore system not working is my excuse/defense, I keep getting trolled in...So its not my intent to be arbitrary but negligent non the less....
        You are right that I have been told the law by people who actually are familiar with it, and I have been told how it is by people who actually enforce it. These are the FBI legal experts, including those who wrote the IG report who have clearly presented that the concept of intent IS VERY relevant to the statute they were enforcing because when they drew the "gross negligent line" that one should never cross, the position of this line was defined by taking into consideration specific legal precedents (which they presented to support their legal decisions) which defined gross negligence relatively to the concept of intent.

        Now feel free to substitute such expertise with people who use fake internet personas to convince us that they are experts and who substantiate their claims about how the law is enforced with ZERO specific legal evidence! This is what partisan hacks or middle school children are only capable to do, and feel free to call me whatever you want because when people throw a fit after their arguments collapse, it makes my claim about their partisan bias and intellectual maturity much more convincing.
        Last edited by pamak; 22 Jul 18, 12:28.
        My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

        Comment


        • Originally posted by pamak View Post

          You are right that I have been told the law by people who actually are familiar with it, and I have been told how it is by people who actually enforce it. These are the FBI legal experts, including those who wrote the IG report who have clearly presented that the concept of intent IS VERY relevant to the statute they were enforcing because when they drew the "gross negligent line" that one should never cross, the position of this line was defined by taking into consideration specific legal precedents (which they presented to support their legal decisions) which defined gross negligence relatively to the concept of intent.

          Now feel free to substitute such expertise with people who use fake internet personas to convince us that they are experts and who substantiate their claims about how the law is enforced with ZERO specific legal evidence! This is what partisan hacks or middle school children are only capable to do, and feel free to call me whatever you want because when people throw a fit after their arguments collapse, it makes my claim about their partisan bias and intellectual maturity much more convincing.
          Good gawd...Now your arguing with yourself........This is your third edit...

          Comment

          Latest Topics

          Collapse

          Working...
          X