The Repub Debate

[BigRedBuster]

Shoot, lots of people thought OJ was a murderer before he went to court and it turned out that they were right...oh wait.

Sooo...let me ask you this. Do you think she purposely had that email server in her home so she could give aide and assistance to our enemies without getting caught?

[teachercd]

 

Shoot, lots of people thought OJ was a murderer before he went to court and it turned out that they were right...oh wait.

 

Sooo...let me ask you this. Do you think she purposely had that email server in her home so she could give aide and assistance to our enemies without getting caught?

No...but I think she had it set up KNOWING that it could be easily targeted ...like a dude driving drunk...they don't think they will cause a problem...I am not even all that drunk...I am not over the limit...I won't get in a crash, kill someone...so they drive drunk. I don't think she thought she would be caught or that it would be an issue...but how does the saying go...ignorance of the law...

 

I can't imagine she did it on purpose, can you? I just think she thought it wasn't a big deal but it is a big deal and she should be held accountable.

 

PS, do you think OJ was guilty? I can't stop watching that new show.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

Shoot, lots of people thought OJ was a murderer before he went to court and it turned out that they were right...oh wait.

Sooo...let me ask you this. Do you think she purposely had that email server in her home so she could give aide and assistance to our enemies without getting caught?

No...but I think she had it set up KNOWING that it could be easily targeted ...like a dude driving drunk...they don't think they will cause a problem...I am not even all that drunk...I am not over the limit...I won't get in a crash, kill someone...so they drive drunk. I don't think she thought she would be caught or that it would be an issue...but how does the saying go...ignorance of the law...

 

I can't imagine she did it on purpose, can you? I just think she thought it wasn't a big deal but it is a big deal and she should be held accountable.

 

PS, do you think OJ was guilty? I can't stop watching that new show.

 

Agree. Which...is not treason.

 

PS.....OJ was so friggen guilty it makes me sick that he got off.

[teachercd]

 

 

 

Shoot, lots of people thought OJ was a murderer before he went to court and it turned out that they were right...oh wait.

Sooo...let me ask you this. Do you think she purposely had that email server in her home so she could give aide and assistance to our enemies without getting caught?

No...but I think she had it set up KNOWING that it could be easily targeted ...like a dude driving drunk...they don't think they will cause a problem...I am not even all that drunk...I am not over the limit...I won't get in a crash, kill someone...so they drive drunk. I don't think she thought she would be caught or that it would be an issue...but how does the saying go...ignorance of the law...

 

I can't imagine she did it on purpose, can you? I just think she thought it wasn't a big deal but it is a big deal and she should be held accountable.

 

PS, do you think OJ was guilty? I can't stop watching that new show.

 

Agree. Which...is not treason.

 

PS.....OJ was so friggen guilty it makes me sick that he got off.

 

That is why they have trials...so that people like Clinton can not be found guilty of treason and so that people like OJ can go free! haha

 

"If the email server doesn't fit...you must acquit"

[AR Husker Fan]

 

 

Now, that is really only counting about 15 people or so so it is not a huge sample size...with that said I do think she will win with ease.

Since it's irrelevant, it doesn't matter. Treason is defined at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 as:

 

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

 

Even taking all of the allegations against Clinton at their face, none of it meets the legal definition of treason.

 

What if just one of her emails sent/received gave aid and/or comfort to an enemy?

 

You have to prove intent. Again, even taking all the allegations against her in the light least favorable to her, there's nothing to indicate intent, and thus nothing to indicate treason

 

Also, you might have old information but I don't think treason is punishable by death anymore, is it? I think that was revised a few years back.

No. That is the current law. Death is one of three possible sentences - death, imprisonment for not less than five years, or a fine of not less than $10,000.

 

 

Her purposely giving the enemies information and help through an email would be treason.

 

Her accidentally allowing enemies to get access to information because she did something stupid is NOT treason. It's just plain stupid.

Oh, I agree with what you are saying but isn't that for a jury to decide? If they do jury trials for this offense.

 

There is no law for being stupid...if there was I think every guy from the ages of 13-25 would have to be locked up!

 

No, it's not for a jury to decide, until such time as there is at least some evidence that supports charging her in the first place with the crime of treason. There is none. Absent at least some degree of probable cause, she can't even be arrested, much less tried.

[teachercd]

So, it is for a jury to decide if they find evidence...

[AR Husker Fan]

So, it is for a jury to decide if they find evidence...

Again, no. A jury doesn't find evidence. A jury decides whether the evidence presented to it by the prosecution proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Under the Constitution, a person cannot be arrested absent evidence, much less charged with or convicted of a crime.

[teachercd]

 

So, it is for a jury to decide if they find evidence...

 

Again, no. A jury doesn't find evidence. A jury decides whether the evidence presented to it by the prosecution proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Under the Constitution, a person cannot be arrested absent evidence, much less charged with or convicted of a crime.

So that is what a jury does!

[AR Husker Fan]

I said that the jury would decide if she was guilty if "they" find evidence...they being the prosecution.

Except that your failure to reference the prosecution after explicitly referencing the jury means that your sentence structure ONLY referenced the jury. But at least you admit that there has to be evidence prior to arrest or conviction.

 

It seems like you believe she did nothing wrong at all...I would rather have the investigation decide that, wouldn't you?

Focus. The discussion you and I are having arose from your claims that Clinton committed treason. Whether I believe one way or another - and I would dearly love to see you provide my quote saying what I believe as to whether she did nothing wrong, the absence of which means that your opinion of my belief is wholly without any substance or justification - is irrelevant and simply an attempt to deflect the fact that I demonstrated that you were wrong on your claim.

 

You don't really think that no one has even been arrested absent evidence, do you?

Again, utterly irrelevant to the discussion of whether Clinton committed treason. Further, it's also irrelevant insofar as the fact that someone may have once been arrested absent evidence does not in any way justify it happening.

[teachercd]

 

I said that the jury would decide if she was guilty if "they" find evidence...they being the prosecution.

Except that your failure to reference the prosecution after explicitly referencing the jury means that your sentence structure ONLY referenced the jury. But at least you admit that there has to be evidence prior to arrest or conviction.

It seems like you believe she did nothing wrong at all...I would rather have the investigation decide that, wouldn't you?

Focus. The discussion you and I are having arose from your claims that Clinton committed treason. Whether I believe one way or another - and I would dearly love to see you provide my quote saying what I believe as to whether she did nothing wrong, the absence of which means that your opinion of my belief is wholly without any substance or justification - is irrelevant and simply an attempt to deflect the fact that I demonstrated that you were wrong on your claim.

You don't really think that no one has even been arrested absent evidence, do you?

Again, utterly irrelevant to the discussion of whether Clinton committed treason. Further, it's also irrelevant insofar as the fact that someone may have once been arrested absent evidence does not in any way justify it happening.

Once people use the "I would love for you to show me where I said..." You know things have gone south

[AR Husker Fan]

 

 

I said that the jury would decide if she was guilty if "they" find evidence...they being the prosecution.

Except that your failure to reference the prosecution after explicitly referencing the jury means that your sentence structure ONLY referenced the jury. But at least you admit that there has to be evidence prior to arrest or conviction.

It seems like you believe she did nothing wrong at all...I would rather have the investigation decide that, wouldn't you?

Focus. The discussion you and I are having arose from your claims that Clinton committed treason. Whether I believe one way or another - and I would dearly love to see you provide my quote saying what I believe as to whether she did nothing wrong, the absence of which means that your opinion of my belief is wholly without any substance or justification - is irrelevant and simply an attempt to deflect the fact that I demonstrated that you were wrong on your claim.

You don't really think that no one has even been arrested absent evidence, do you?

Again, utterly irrelevant to the discussion of whether Clinton committed treason. Further, it's also irrelevant insofar as the fact that someone may have once been arrested absent evidence does not in any way justify it happening.

 

Once people use the "I would love for you to show me where I said..." You know things have gone south

 

In the same vein as when people try and attribute beliefs to others that those others have never voiced, or to change the subject in an attempt to deflect defeat.

[teachercd]

Agreed...I am glad you could admit that.

[TGHusker]

Good review of the possible delegate harvest if trends continue. The article states that Trump could get enough delegates prior to convention if his past trends continues. I think, however, that he might fall short as I see the Wisc vote as a big rebuttal and I hope more and more people are waking up to him being bad for America. I'd like to see Kasich do well in NY, Penn and Calf to stop Trump cold.

 

I heard on the radio this morning that if no one has enough delegates before the convention, Marco Rubio may jump back in just before the convention and be considered 'one of those' running for the office and try to secure the nomination on a 2nd ballot. This may be wild eye fantasy that this could occur but I wouldn't discount anything this election cycle. If there was a consensus candidate - I think Kasich may be most qualified and most electable in the GE.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/30/upshot/trump-clinton-delegate-calculator.html

 

Delegate counter:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html?_r=0

 

According to this poll, Kasich is the only one who beats Clinton or Sanders head to head (although I think Cruz would toast either one in a fair debate)

 

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Trump-Clinton-Pennsylvania-Lead/2016/04/06/id/722491/

[BigRedBuster]

Well, I think the only way to stop Trump from getting the nomination is to have more delegates than him going into the convention.

He and his worshipers are going to go bonkers if he has one more delegate and the convention votes someone else as the candidate.

 

Problem is, Cruz is the only one possible to get more and I don't want him either.

[TGHusker]

Well, I think the only way to stop Trump from getting the nomination is to have more delegates than him going into the convention.

He and his worshipers are going to go bonkers if he has one more delegate and the convention votes someone else as the candidate.

 

Problem is, Cruz is the only one possible to get more and I don't want him either.

That is why Kasich has to remain in the race. He might be the fall back guy since Trump supporters hate Cruz and Cruz supporters hate Trump. Then the big question then would be: Can the Repub party convince enough voters not sit home and go to the polls to defeat Hillary in the fall? Of course we are seeing it getting nasty on the Dem side as well. Outside of an indictment prior to the convention, Hillary will win the nomination. But will the Sander voters, who see this process as very unfair wt the supper delegates in Hillary's back pocket, decide to stay away from the poll or support some obscure 3rd party - Green Party candidate?