What is better or worse for Trump?

[*bfine32*]

(05-25-2018, 01:36 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Who is the individual that broke the law? Hillary, right? Hence, Hillary broke the law. 

Peep my EDIT in post 15

[*PhilHos*]

(05-25-2018, 01:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Peep my EDIT in post 15

[fredtoast]

(05-25-2018, 01:36 PM)PhilHos Wrote: James Comey: "...there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information..." In other words, there is evidence she broke the law.

Everytime one car strikes another car that is evidence of potential violations of the law.  But evidence of "potential" violations is not the same as violations.

So everytime you have a car wreck there is evidence that you broke the law.

[fredtoast]

(05-25-2018, 12:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As I said she didn't break the law (or so Comey concluded) because she was incompetent. What I did say was Laws were broken; The Federal Records Act for one. 

EDIT: I should have said she did not commit a crime, she did break a law or 2

Is a law broken every time someone is injured in a car wreck?

No.

[*bfine32*]

(05-25-2018, 01:49 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Is a law broken every time someone is injured in a car wreck?

No.

See I told you that you don't need me to answer. You can do it for me . But I must ask: Who the hell is talking about a car wreck. And Pat gives you credit for staying on topic SMDH 

[fredtoast]

(05-25-2018, 01:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Who the hell is talking about a car wreck. 

Car wreck is the best example I can think of to illustrate the legal concept of "intent" or "gross negligence" being required to "break a law".  You seem to be struggling to grasp that.

[*bfine32*]

(05-25-2018, 02:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Car wreck is the best example I can think of to illustrate the legal concept of "intent" or "gross negligence" being required to "break a law".  You seem to be struggling to grasp that.

Why not just use Hillary as an example. She broke laws but was not considered to have committed a crime, because of intent. And yes, one of is struggling to grasp that. 

[fredtoast]

(05-25-2018, 03:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why not just use Hillary as an example. She broke laws but was not considered to have committed a crime, because of intent. And yes, one of is struggling to grasp that. 

That is like saying every person that has a car wreck breaks a law.  That just is not true.

It takes either intent or gross negligence to break a law (usually).  Hillary was guilty of neither.  So she did not break the law or commit a crime.

[*bfine32*]

(05-25-2018, 04:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: That is like saying every person that has a car wreck breaks a law.  That just is not true.

It takes either intent or gross negligence to break a law (usually).  Hillary was guilty of neither.  So she did not break the law or commit a crime.

OK, I'm done. Laws were broken. There were violations of the Federal Records Act, the Freedom of Information Act, and most certainty a violation of Section 1924 of Title 18. But you keep rambling on about a car wreck.