You won't see liberals complain about obama's spending

[MikesJohnson]

Intent is a required element to commit a crime. This is not new.

Dude, Obama, Lynch, Comey and Hillary are the epitome of government malfeasance, crime and corruption. It's comical that you give them a pass even though they were blatantly corrupt. How about Lynch meeting with Bill on the tarmac? How do you spin that? Cue the cunt act.

 

[Max_Polo]

The difference being, only one of these "biases" is currently under congressional and Justice Department investigation.

Because that's they way our system works. There were DOJ investigations during the Obama administration as well.

 

[Max_Polo]

She's not.

And he's not either. He's in the White House and she's about to start a book tour to explain why she lost.

 

[Klingsor]

Because that's they way our system works. There were DOJ investigations during the Obama administration as well.

With their accompanying results--as will be the case with Trump. I watch with interest.

 

[Max_Polo]

Intent is a required element to commit a crime. This is not new.

Umm... Nope... Not only is intent not a requirement (see manslaughter), ignorance is not an affirmative defense (see tax liability).

 

[MikesJohnson]

Umm... Nope... Not only is intent not a requirement (see manslaughter), ignorance is not an affirmative defense (see tax liability).

Hillary was never going to be indicted because of the mountains of dirt that she had on Obama. She had a license to steal and that's exactly what she did and the multitudes of useful idiots on the left did and continue to shill for her.

 

[keenobserver]

Dude, Obama, Lynch, Comey and Hillary are the epitome of government malfeasance, crime and corruption. It's comical that you give them a pass even though they were blatantly corrupt. How about Lynch meeting with Bill on the tarmac? How do you spin that? Cue the cunt act.

The pass is the "no indictment." That is the standard. The Lynch meeting was stupid, but no has been able to prove criminal - still it looked bad. No spin, just the facts.

 

[keenobserver]

Umm... Nope... Not only is intent not a requirement (see manslaughter), ignorance is not an affirmative defense (see tax liability).

Actually ignorance works quite well with tax law as a defense. The judiciary and the IRS are pretty forgiving of ignorance given the complexity of tax law. It has honestly worked well for Trump and a lot of people with complicated tax issues.

 

[Industrialsize]

And he's not either. He's in the White House and she's about to start a book tour to explain why she lost.

He sits in the White House, under FBI investigation.

 

[Max_Polo]

Actually ignorance works quite well with tax law as a defense. The judiciary and the IRS are pretty forgiving of ignorance given the complexity of tax law. It has honestly worked well for Trump and a lot of people with complicated tax issues.

Well, I'm not a lawyer so don't have to worry about a legal malpractice claim but I don't it's going out on a limb to say that's not a good strategy for dealing with the IRS.

 

[Max_Polo]

He sits in the White House, under FBI investigation.

Again, as it should be. If he's found to have committed a crime, I'd anticipate appropriate consequences to follow. But we have an interesting tradition in this country where we presume innocence.

 

[MikesJohnson]

The pass is the "no indictment." That is the standard. The Lynch meeting was stupid, but no has been able to prove criminal - still it looked bad. No spin, just the facts.

Our federal government is littered with corruption thankfully in large part to guys like you. Congratulations.

 

[keenobserver]

Well, I'm not a lawyer so don't have to worry about a legal malpractice claim but I don't it's going out on a limb to say that's not a good strategy for dealing with the IRS.

It is situational, and it is usually resolved in audits but it does work in some IRS cases more so than it would in other types of crimes.

Manslaughter is murder mitigated by lack of intent - http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/homicide-murder-manslaughter-32637-2.html

 

[Max_Polo]

It is situational, and it is usually resolved in audits but it does work in some IRS cases more so than it would in other types of crimes.

I'll take your word for it, honestly have no experience.

Manslaughter is murder mitigated by lack of intent - http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/homicide-murder-manslaughter-32637-2.html

That's precisely why I chose it as the example, there are certainly others. I was replying to:

Intent is a required element to commit a crime. This is not new.

 

[Max_Polo]

33,000 missing emails and you're still standing firm with Hillary. Why do you oppose honesty and integrity in government?

 

[Industrialsize]

33,000 missing emails and you're still standing firm with Hillary. Why do you oppose honesty and integrity in government?

Those emails are causing trouble for Trump, not Clinton:
Robert Mueller investigating whether Mike Flynn tried to obtain Clinton's 33,000 emails from Russia: Report
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/r...000-emails-from-russia-report/article/2632621

 

[malakos]

The difference being, only one of these "biases" is currently under congressional and Justice Department investigation.

Do you not think the Bush (Jr.) administration should have been under investigation for war-related misconduct?

 

[malakos]

What crimes do you think Obama might have committed? Why, when the GOP launched many investigations of Secretary Clinton did they not demand a special prosecutor to pursue Obama's crimes? Why did they not hold hearings about Obama's crimes? Perhaps - and I'm reaching here - perhaps there were no crimes?

I've not suggested having any particularly anti-Obama view. I never trusted the man, but that doesn't mean I'll assume he's especially criminal (compared to any other politician) without seeing clear indications of such.

 

[Max_Polo]

Those emails are causing trouble for Trump, not Clinton:
Robert Mueller investigating whether Mike Flynn tried to obtain Clinton's 33,000 emails from Russia: Report
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/r...000-emails-from-russia-report/article/2632621

I don't know that they're causing trouble for Trump but it's an irony sufficient to make just about anyone smile I'd think. Maybe Mueller can find them after all.

 

[MikesJohnson]

Those emails are causing trouble for Trump, not Clinton:
Robert Mueller investigating whether Mike Flynn tried to obtain Clinton's 33,000 emails from Russia: Report
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/r...000-emails-from-russia-report/article/2632621

What would be wrong with trying to recover Hillary's illegally destroyed emails?