Wikileaks......still no proof of corruption.

[fredtoast]

(11-03-2016, 10:17 AM)bfine32 Wrote: The amazing thing in this story is that the Hills' campaign was told in advance; yet POTUS claimed he found out like everyone else when the news broke. Is this true or is it possible POTUS lied to the American people for some biased reason?

Was POTUS part of Hills campaign?

[*bfine32*]

(11-03-2016, 07:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Was POTUS part of Hills campaign?

Hell yeah. Where u been?

[tigerseye]

NYPD  NYPD  NYPD  NYPD  NYPD  NYPD  NYPD  NYPD  NYPD

HOPE THEY CAN STAND UP TO IT

NYPD VS MASSIVE CORRUPTION MACHINE OF THE CLINTONS

CLINTON HAD IT COVERED WHEN IT WAS ONLY THE FBI AND THE DOJ.

HOPE THE NYPD CAN STAND UP TO IT.

The best thing for our country is for the truth to come out.

The truth will set you free.




or maybe not.

[*rfaulk34*]

(11-03-2016, 07:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Only because you are so good at hiding the evidence.



Sound familiar?

No. There has to be a pattern of accusations before you can compare the two.

You missed the mark.

[GMDino]

(11-05-2016, 09:45 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: No. There has to be a pattern of accusations before you can compare the two.

You missed the mark.

I've seen at least three accusations.  And that's just on this board!

What if I looked elsewhere?!?!?!

[*rfaulk34*]

(11-05-2016, 10:55 AM)GMDino Wrote: I've seen at least three accusations.  And that's just on this board!

What if I looked elsewhere?!?!?!

Three accusations of a board member being a kiddie-diddler?

[JustWinBaby]

(11-03-2016, 07:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Only because you are so good at hiding the evidence.

Ummm, no....

You're supposed to be a lawyer...wouldn't being good at hiding the evidence imply people have looked for the evidence?  If I've never even been accused, would a good lawyer suspect it's because I'm merely good at hiding evidence?

So putting on your lawyer hat - is lack of evidence proof of innocence?  And, again, those of us who've never been accused - much less repeatedly with ample circumstantial evidence or not - don't have to "prove" our innocence.

And what is your obsession with little girls and boys? Do you think you're funny? It's ***** disgusting and juvenile at best. You're supposed to be a lawyer, but your responses usually either accuse someone of getting their ideas from an echo chamber, or stalking little girls or boys. Hell, Trump's insults are less pedestrian and sophomoric than yours.

[HarleyDog]

(10-23-2016, 11:25 AM)xxlt Wrote: Philosophically, I've always felt an agency relationship existed between us.

Practically, absolutely: if you can get me writing gigs PM me. I love to write.

(10-23-2016, 03:20 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I can only guarantee bathroom walls, right now.
Just give me a little time.

Gotta start somewhere!

[fredtoast]

(11-06-2016, 01:20 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: You're supposed to be a lawyer...wouldn't being good at hiding the evidence imply people have looked for the evidence?  If I've never even been accused, would a good lawyer suspect it's because I'm merely good at hiding evidence?

So if you were a criminal you would not worry about hiding evidence until AFTER you had been accusedf and investigated?

A skilled lawyer like myself would assume that the people who are best at hiding evidence are the ones who have never been accused at all.

(11-06-2016, 01:20 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: So putting on your lawyer hat - is lack of evidence proof of innocence? 

It is just as much proof of innocence as it is proof of guilt.


Basically you are trying to say that lack of evidence against you only proves you are innocent until you are accused then lack of evidence proves that you are guilty but just good at hiding evidence.


Like I said before, if you are talking about proof of kickbacks and bribes then you have to show what benefit was given for these bribes and kickbacks.  Hillary would have no way of hiding those.  So what are they?