• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Official: Some Clinton emails too damaging to release

Frank Apisa said:
If you found that funny...I would suggest you not attempt humor too often.



I am not a legal scholar, but I doubt my writing would be laughed out of the courtroom. Actually, I have twice sued in small claims court...once against an insurance company who furnished a lawyer. I won both cases...and in both, the judge commended me on the case summary. Both judges were impressed enough to ask if I had legal training.

Anyway...your comment about me needing help with writing technique is itself laughable.
Click to expand...

You seem like the type of person that sues other people. Here's some news for you. Small claims court is kindergarten.

Instead of rambling along with unclear comments, maybe you could try and actually respond to the post you quoted rather than trying to discuss something that wasn't even mentioned.


Surely a world renowned writer like yourself can manage that. :roll:
 
Gill said:
You seem like the type of person that sues other people. Here's some news for you. Small claims court is kindergarten.
Click to expand...

Yup...but for someone with no legal training...it is tough kindergarten.


Instead of rambling along with unclear comments, maybe you could try and actually respond to the post you quoted rather than trying to discuss something that wasn't even mentioned.
Click to expand...

I do not make unclear comments; I do not ramble; and I have responded to everything that has come my way.

What is your problem?


Surely a world renowned writer like yourself can manage that. :roll:
Click to expand...

(sigh)
 
Let's get back on topic. Thanks.
 
matchlight said:
That's right. This disgrace of an Attorney General will determine whether Mrs. Clinton is even indicted by a grand jury. Whether she is ever proven guilty of any federal crime is irrelevant to whether she can be elected President. After all, her husband didn't need to be proven guilty of any crime to be impeached and forced out of office.
Click to expand...
What the hell? Forced out of office??
 
If she is not convicted of any crimes...she is not guilty of those crimes, no matter that you want that to be the case.
Click to expand...

I don't care if Mrs. Clinton is convicted of any crime, as long as she is finished politically. And it won't take proof beyond a reasonable doubt to accomplish that.
 
matchlight said:
I don't care if Mrs. Clinton is convicted of any crime, as long as she is finished politically. And it won't take proof beyond a reasonable doubt to accomplish that.
Click to expand...

I imagine after her second term...that should happen.

In fact, I'd bet on it.
 
Paperview said:
What the hell? Forced out of office??
Click to expand...

Neither was Andrew Johnson, technically--they both served out their terms. But in both cases, impeachment hurt their prestige so badly they were no longer able to influence events much. Both our impeached Presidents remained in the White House, but they might as well not have. Johnson's reputation has been permanently tarnished, and in time Clinton's probably will be too.

But impeachment is not the problem for Mrs. Clinton--getting nominated and elected is. And in the court of public opinion, where those things will be decided, the criminal law standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt will not apply.
 
matchlight said:
Neither was Andrew Johnson, technically--they both served out their terms. But in both cases, impeachment hurt their prestige so badly they were no longer able to influence events much. Both our impeached Presidents remained in the White House, but they might as well not have. Johnson's reputation has been permanently tarnished, and in time Clinton's probably will be too.

But impeachment is not the problem for Mrs. Clinton--getting nominated and elected is. And in the court of public opinion, where those things will be decided, the criminal law standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt will not apply.
Click to expand...

So you are saying you hope she does not get elected.

Okay...that's allowed.
 
matchlight said:
Neither was Andrew Johnson, technically--they both served out their terms. But in both cases, impeachment hurt their prestige so badly they were no longer able to influence events much. Both our impeached Presidents remained in the White House, but they might as well not have. Johnson's reputation has been permanently tarnished, and in time Clinton's probably will be too.
...
Click to expand...

First of all - they were both acquitted.

Found Not Guilty. Impeachment is merely the political equivalent of an indictment. Both impeachments were political stunts, and in Clinton's case, the harder the GOP worked to impeach him, the higher his approval ratings shot up -- he left office with sky high approval ratings, and is still one of the most popular politicians / president in America, if not the world.

Try harder dude. Your revisionist history is oozing of manure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom