Clinton's Intent (Page 2): I point out again, you're fighting your assumptions rather than facts, rather then something you Know. And you make these assumptions out of fear. When you...

Twardlow Loc: Arkansas

richosob wrote:

You know, maybe your right. They both flew their p... (show quote)

I point out again, you're fighting your assumptions rather than facts, rather then something you Know.

And you make these assumptions out of fear.

When you fight what you imagine fearfully, you always end up loser.

richosob Loc: Lambertville, MI

Twardlow wrote:

I point out again, you're fighting your assumptions rather than facts, rather then something you Know.

And you make these assumptions out of fear.

When you fight what you imagine fearfully, you always end up loser.

Go ahead and believe that it was a coincidence that they happened to be there, man what a gullible fool. I bet the Clinton's and odumbo's laugh when they think you clowns actually fall for this crap.

Twardlow Loc: Arkansas

richosob wrote:

Go ahead and believe that it was a coincidence that they happened to be there, man what a gullible fool. I bet the Clinton's and odumbo's laugh when they think you clowns actually fall for this crap.

You prove again, for the third time, you're in love with fearing your imaginings.

mwalsh Loc: Houston

Twardlow wrote:

I point out again, you're fighting your assumptions rather than facts, rather then something you Know.

And you make these assumptions out of fear.

When you fight what you imagine fearfully, you always end up loser.

Of course, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, sounds like a duck...

Even if you can't prove it's a duck with citationable facts,

It's likely a duck.

The Bill/Lynch serendipitous clandestine meeting smells of some old fish...

richosob Loc: Lambertville, MI

Twardlow wrote:

You prove again, for the third time, you're in love with fearing your imaginings.

And for the third time you have shown yourself to be an old fool who refuses to see what's so obvious.

letmedance Loc: Walnut, Ca.

Twardlow wrote:

You make wild, uncontrolled jumps in logic, and have plenty of sincerity in your error.

Hillary isn't guilty of killing or murder or whatever, no matter what you think.

I am beginning to think that God has come back you us. He lives in Arkansas and knows all past, present, and future.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

rgrenaderphoto wrote:

So, you support Clinton in her efforts to bring Julian Assange to justice in the US?

That would depend greatly on what you consider to be justice. Macy's Parade maybe?

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Twardlow wrote:

I'm a little unclear. Do you think intent is somehow involved? How do you define it?

BTW, can you define Treason as it is defined in the U. S. Constitution?

Do you know what a jailhouse lawyer it?

Now you are one.

He has already stated that the signing of the document she acknowledged that even without intent that non-compliance would constitute a crime, as far as treason goes, you brought that into the discussion, nowhere is it found in his opening post. It does seem that you are a little fuzzy today.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Twardlow wrote:

I point out again, you're fighting your assumptions rather than facts, rather then something you Know.

And you make these assumptions out of fear.

When you fight what you imagine fearfully, you always end up loser.

You are simply being obtuse and condescending.

Twardlow Loc: Arkansas

Blurryeyed wrote:

He has already stated that the signing of the document she acknowledged that even without intent that non-compliance would constitute a crime, as far as treason goes, you brought that into the discussion, nowhere is it found in his opening post. It does seem that you are a little fuzzy today.

"Clinton signed a document regarding the laws regarding the handling of classified data, The mere mishandling of such info constitutes a crime. Intent is not required. It is implied by the act. If this breech of security lead to the death of a federal agent she is guilty of treason. Intent is implied by the act. The mere lying to a federal investigator is a federal crime. Martha Stuart spent 3 months in jail for this crime. Intent was implied by the act. A navy Seaman is in jail for traking pictures aboard a submarine. He had no INTENT to commit this breech of security. His intent was implied by his act. IGNORANCE of a crime is no excuse. I am not an attorney- but I can read. There is no doubt that hillary commited a serious mishandling of classified documents. Her guilt is not an issue. Intent is not required for her conviction. The statute is clear, intent is not an issue."

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Twardlow wrote:

"Clinton signed a document regarding the laws... (show quote)

LOL... Then maybe it is me that is a little fuzzy.... At any rate, I don't know how anyone can dispute Clinton's guilt at this point, the only question that remains is just how corrupt is Obama's DOJ.

Twardlow Loc: Arkansas

Blurryeyed wrote:

LOL... Then maybe it is me that is a little fuzzy.... At any rate, I don't know how anyone can dispute Clinton's guilt at this point, the only question that remains is just how corrupt is Obama's DOJ.

you mean the Republican Comey?

ken hubert Loc: Missouri

Twardlow wrote:

"Unfortunately there are two sets of rules, o... (show quote)

You're simple all right. You should be committed for your own safety.