Originally posted by Very Rusty You said: Hillary Clinton hasn't been proven innocent of murdering those 47 people, or having people murder them for her [and her husband], either.
I said: Do you personally believe she was responsible for the murder of 47 people?
You said: Why, do you think I might?
It appeared to me to be a simple Yes or No answer.
-VR
Do you think I might believe that the Clintons had 47 people murdered? Do you think THAT's the reason I suddenly mentioned it - in the context of robbie prattling on about how Clinton "was not found innocent" yet, etc. etc. ad nauseam?
Originally posted by FMF Do you think I might believe that the Clintons had 47 people murdered? Do you think THAT's the reason I suddenly mentioned it - in the context of robbie prattling on about how Clinton "was not found innocent" yet, etc. etc. ad nauseam?
FMF,
I am not a mind reader. How am I to know what you are thinking? We can only go by your written words. You still haven't answered a simple YES or NO question.
Originally posted by Very Rusty I am not a mind reader. How am I to know what you are thinking? We can only go by your written words. You still haven't answered a simple YES or NO question.
I find it much more interesting how you have dashed yourself on the rocks of blatant, deadpan irony and are now flailing about - tone deaf - demanding a "simple" yes or no answer. I certainly haven't accused you of being a mind reader. You can only go by my written words. 😛
Originally posted by FMF Do you think I might believe that the Clintons had 47 people murdered? Do you think THAT's the reason I suddenly mentioned it - in the context of robbie prattling on about how Clinton "was not found innocent" yet, etc. etc. ad nauseam?
We are talking about the FBI investigation into her use of private servers when she was Secretary of state and in which the FBI found no evidence of criminal intent. Where you get the ludicrous idea that it concerned murder allegations I really cannot say but then again most of what you say is unadulterated nonsense.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie We are talking about the FBI investigation into her use of private servers when she was Secretary of state and in which the FBI found no evidence of criminal intent.
The mention of the notorious alt-right meme about the "47 murders" is in the context of your silly Trumpesque suggestions - on two forums - that Mrs Clinton ought to be considered guilty until proven innocent or acquitted.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie She's Hillary Clinton, the normal rule of law does not apply. Furthermore some have stated that this proves that Mrs Clinton is innocent, which it does not. For her to be proven innocent she would need to go to trial...
Is she not presumed innocent of criminality until such a trial takes place?
Originally posted by FMF The mention of the notorious alt-right meme about the "47 murders" is in the context of your silly Trumpesque suggestions - on two forums - that Mrs Clinton ought to be considered guilty until proven innocent or acquitted.
Oh dear your thrashing about is not going to save you. My reservations about Mrs Clinton concern her unauthorised use of a private email server not any allegations that she murdered 47 people as you have once again erroneously assumed. Perhaps if you were not so self assuming you would not make this kind of mistake. Who can tell?
Originally posted by FMF Is she not presumed innocent of criminality until such a trial takes place?
No one is questioning the presumption of innocence. What was actually claimed was that Mrs Clinton was proven innocent (actually you are never proven innocent but acquitted) by the FBI stating that its position had not changed and that they had found no evidence of criminal intent. The FBI not finding any evidence of criminal intent proves nothing except that the FBI did not find any evidence of criminal intent. Clearly Mrs Clinton was not 'proven innocent' because in order for one to be acquitted (proven innocent), one must stand trial which she did not. If you are having difficulty with the simple logic please ask someone for help.
In summation, Mrs Clinton is innocent until proven guilty but she has not been 'proven to be innocent' (actually acquitted) until she stands trail.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie Oh dear your thrashing about is not going to save you. My reservations about Mrs Clinton concern her unauthorised use of a private email server not any allegations that she murdered 47 people as you have once again erroneously assumed.
I haven't said you thought Clinton murdered 47 people or that you have reservations about the allegations. All I'm saying is that she is innocent of any criminality regarding her e-mails unless criminal charges are brought against her, she is prosecuted, and she is found guilty. Till then, she is innocent. No charges are being brought against her, so she is innocent and has not committed crimes. Maybe a court case will change that status in the future, but until that happens she is presumed innocent. She is is also presumed innocent of murder.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie In summation, Mrs Clinton is innocent until proven guilty but she has not been 'proven to be innocent' (actually acquitted) until she stands trail.
You have stated that Clinton was not found innocent by anyone. So what is it you think she has been found to be, if not innocent? Are you claiming she was found to have committed crimes? It seems the FBI have looked into the case twice and have found her to have been careless but have found her to be innocent of crimes.
Originally posted by FMF I find it much more interesting how you have dashed yourself on the rocks of blatant, deadpan irony and are now flailing about - tone deaf - demanding a "simple" yes or no answer. I certainly haven't accused you of being a mind reader. You can only go by my written words. 😛
FMF,
It appears you are the one flailing around as you call it. My question just required a simple YES or NO answer. I find myself having to agree with robbie when it comes to you, as hard as that is for me to do!
Originally posted by robbie carrobie No one is questioning the presumption of innocence. What was actually claimed was that Mrs Clinton was proven innocent (actually you are never proven innocent but acquitted) by the FBI stating that its position had not changed and that they had found no evidence of criminal intent. The FBI not finding any evidence of criminal intent proves nothing e ...[text shortened]... guilty but she has not been 'proven to be innocent' (actually acquitted) until she stands trail.
robbie,
Be serious, do you think there will EVER be a trial?
Clinton Trump 3rd Debate
07 Nov '16 23:27
Back to Top