Trump won't concede - Free Chat, Mobile Dating Forums

Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Topic: Trump won't concede

LittleLeftofRight

Mon 10/24/16 03:24 PM

She did not "admit guilt."

Why would she apologize like any other criminal for her mistake if that is not an admission of guilt?

http://www.statenation.co/hstr.html

Need to hear it for yourself? Explain how you feel that is not admitssion of guilt?

My question is how on earth can anyone sanction a 'criminal' for president?

taking responsibility for an error and admitting 'guilt' of a crime are far from the same thing,,,

You cant be serious? Can you? If you are please run for judge in my county!! Give me 2 years and I will rule this town! LOL

Edited by LittleLeftofRight on Mon 10/24/16 03:24 PM

LittleLeftofRight

Mon 10/24/16 03:26 PM

How can you concede to someone who should be in prison?

No matter how they want to stack that deck hillary comes out on top as the biggest criminal.

What I dont understand is how anyone could even consider voting for someone to run our country that if they were our next door neighbor we would have them in jail. trump might be an ******* in many ways but it does not rise to the level lawlessness we have seen from the clintion regime.

msharmony

Mon 10/24/16 04:47 PM

She did not "admit guilt."

taking responsibility for an error and admitting 'guilt' of a crime are far from the same thing,,,

You cant be serious? Can you? If you are please run for judge in my county!! Give me 2 years and I will rule this town! LOL

why cant I be serious?

if I admit that I was responsible for taking my kid to a party of teens, its not admitting guilt to a CRIME that may then occur,, just responsibility for what lead her to being there,,,

msharmony

Mon 10/24/16 04:48 PM

How can you concede to someone who should be in prison?

lol,, the same way HR departments everywhere hire people with experience in the job over those without...

all the unsubstantiated allegations and character assassinations aside,,,,

all you need to 'know' is whats been proven, not what you assume is true merely because it showed up on an unsubstantiated webpage or article somewhere,,,

Edited by msharmony on Mon 10/24/16 04:50 PM

LittleLeftofRight

Mon 10/24/16 06:39 PM

How can you concede to someone who should be in prison?

here again, hillary admits she is guilty and you call it unsubstantiated? I cant believe my eyes! rofl

msharmony

Mon 10/24/16 06:42 PM

no, but I can understand ENGLISH

she never admitted guilt to any CRIME

or she would not be running

LittleLeftofRight

Mon 10/24/16 06:44 PM

if you admit that you was responsible for taking your kid to a teens BOOZE party, you admit that you are guilty of negligence and a misdemeanor. I dont know where you can get away with admiting guilt without being guilty. Thats like really orwellian you know.

msharmony

Mon 10/24/16 06:49 PM

IF you admit responsibility for a CRIME,with IF and CRIME being the significant words

LittleLeftofRight

Mon 10/24/16 07:01 PM

IF you admit responsibility for a CRIME,with IF and CRIME being the significant words

when you admit to committing an 'act' [which she did] and it is that act that is the crime.

She even apologized for committing the crime :)

msharmony

Mon 10/24/16 07:00 PM

no, but I can understand ENGLISH

she never admitted guilt to any CRIME

or she would not be running

you might understand english very well but you obviously dont understand how courts interpret guilt. You seem to have a misguided position that someone has to sign an affidavit swearing they are guilty to be guilty. Thats not the way it works in the real world.

no , but you do have to be proven guilty of a CRIME,,,,

otherwise, its just allegation,,,

msharmony

Mon 10/24/16 07:09 PM

IF you admit responsibility for a CRIME,with IF and CRIME being the significant words

when you admit to committing an 'act' [which she did] and it is that act that is the crime.

She even apologized for committing the crime :)

no she didnt you are interpreting what she was speaking about was 'crime', but the justice system determines that and has not interpreted it that way

obviously

msharmony

Mon 10/24/16 07:30 PM

when you write the laws, maybe it will be illegal to have a private server or delete mails

as the laws stand, it was not

british is a nationality,, Clinton and the majority of presidents have been AMERICAN

and , by law, that tradition will continue,,,until some non american who is rich and charismatic enough convinces us its a ploy to maintain the 'corrupt' system we have,,

I understand the judicial system fine,, but if you have no argument thats logical or with merit, I understand your lack of desire to continue,,,,

msharmony

Mon 10/24/16 07:50 PM

and all you have is cut and paste about what hillary MAY have done

lol

http://ijr.com/2015/03/264655-3-federal-laws-hillary-may-violated-secret-email-accounts/

not one has she been found guilty of to this day however

LittleLeftofRight

Mon 10/24/16 07:55 PM

"not one has been found guilty"

your link says no such thing

LittleLeftofRight

Mon 10/24/16 07:56 PM

Spoliation of evidence is an act that is prohibited by American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 37 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Title 18 United States Code. Sanctions for spoliation are preventative, punitive and remedial in nature. Separate tort actions are also permitted.

American Bar Association Rule 3.4 prohibits a lawyer from destroying or assisting another in destroying evidence pertaining to a case. Likewise Title 18 of United States Code Sections 1503, 1510, 1512 and 1519 prohibits a party from destroying or assisting another in destroying evidence, and provides for criminal prosecution against the wrongdoer. Under Title 18 United States Code Section 1519, a wrongdoer can be fined in huge amounts and imprisoned up to 20 years.

Edited by LittleLeftofRight on Mon 10/24/16 08:02 PM

msharmony

Mon 10/24/16 08:02 PM

"not one has been found guilty"

your link says no such thing

my link is the source to your post

there is no link saying she was found guilty, so I need no source saying she wasnt

msharmony

Mon 10/24/16 08:03 PM

and continuing for those who do understand law.

Spoliation of evidence is an act that is prohibited by American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 37 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Title 18 United States Code. Sanctions for spoliation are preventative, punitive and remedial in nature. Separate tort actions are also permitted.

American Bar Association Rule 3.4 prohibits a lawyer from destroying or assisting another in destroying evidence pertaining to a case. Likewise Title 18 of United States Code Sections 1503, 1510, 1512 and 1519 prohibits a party from destroying or assisting another in destroying evidence, and provides for criminal prosecution against the wrongdoer. Under Title 18 United States Code Section 1519, a wrongdoer can be fined in huge amounts and imprisoned up to 20 years.

Im sure those charged with investigating have a very extensive understanding of the law beyond googling ,,,,,

LittleLeftofRight

Mon 10/24/16 08:05 PM

thats your strawman argument, I never said or implied she was tried and found guilty.

It changes nothing, she did the crime but unlike other americans she gets a get out of jail free card.

more:

It is commonly understood that destroying relevant evidence after entry of a federal court order requiring its production to the adverse party will support severe sanctions. See Recinos-Recinos v. Express Forestry, Inc., 2006 WL 2349459, *8-11 (E.D. La. 2006) There is nothing in Rule 37(f) creating a safe harbor in those circumstances because the continuation of a policy that causes the destruction of evidence subject to an outstanding court order is unreasonable as a matter of law.

Edited by LittleLeftofRight on Mon 10/24/16 08:06 PM

LittleLeftofRight

Mon 10/24/16 08:09 PM

Im sure those charged with investigating have a very extensive understanding of the law beyond googling ,,,,,

which is why it took me mere 'seconds' to dig up the corresponding law proving her actions are criminal, and you wrong.

msharmony

Mon 10/24/16 11:06 PM

LMAO

to look up rules for ATTORNEYS ordered to share evidence in a court case,,,

smh

she was not acting as an attorny in a court case

she is actually a subject in a federal investigation,,, NOT THE SAME THING

but

I guess if a mingler says so,,,,

someone should call the feds and people who went to law school and work in laws and let them know,, case has been solved

Edited by msharmony on Mon 10/24/16 11:10 PM

Community > Politics, Current News & Events