Support for a 3rd party at an all time high

[]2epo]v[an]

So, just because some angry redneck idiot like you proclaims the courts to be a rubber stamp arm of the government, I'm supposed to take your goofball vomit-spewing as the gospel truth????

God, you're a fucking clown!!!!

SmarterthanYou = DumberthanShit

Not beginning or ending with comey, the sack of shit that rewrote the statute on losing classified data to necessitate the condition of intent. Intent was never part of the statute or else losing the data would be the easiest way to sell it. "Hey hillbillary, where's the classified intel i sent you." "My dog ate it and then it got publushed all over tge internet because i couldnt put national security above my own personal convenience." "Well damn, sounds legit to me, not guilty."

"Comey, you're fired."

"What!!!."

And so goes 4 solid years of frivolous impeachment attempts complete with misandrist overtones....

Yeah. I hate your soul. Permanently.

(T)

 

[]2epo]v[an]

he doesn't have to ask me anything......he already knows the answer to every question.......and the real question isn't who I think I am....its who I think HE is......

Didnt you know? Jesuit atheists know god personally... who did you think you were arguing with?

 

[Nomad]

Not beginning or ending with comey, the sack of shit that rewrote the statute on losing classified data to necessitate the condition of intent. Intent was never part of the statute or else losing the data would be the easiest way to sell it. "Hey hillbillary, where's the classified intel i sent you." "My dog ate it and then it got publushed all over tge internet because i couldnt put national security above my own personal convenience." "Well damn, sounds legit to me, not guilty."

"Comey, you're fired."

"What!!!."

And so goes 4 solid years of frivolous impeachment attempts complete with misandrist overtones....

Yeah. I hate your soul. Permanently.

(T)

You lie like dog shit on the lawn.



And who exactly was it that you idiotically believe single-handedly and unilaterally rewrote the statute on losing data????

Because the last I heard, only the Legislative Branch has the power to rewrite statutes and they then have to be signed into law by the Executive Branch.

You truly are the stupidest motherfucker to ever waste oxygen via respiration, aren't you?

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Didnt you know? Jesuit atheists know god personally... who did you think you were arguing with?

nomad......just another lib'rul who carries his dick in his pocket.....

 

[]2epo]v[an]

Define 'real'. Betcha can't!

That which exists independently of me and my beliefs of it; as spoken as any given human being.

 

[]2epo]v[an]

You lie like dog shit on the lawn.



And who exactly was it that you idiotically believe single-handedly and unilaterally rewrote the statute on losing data????

Because the last I heard, only the Legislative Branch has the power to rewrite statutes and they then have to be signed into law by the Executive Branch.

You truly are the stupidest motherfucker to ever waste oxygen via respiration, aren't you?

Comey in his recomendations to doj concerning hillbillary's illegal classified intel server. (C)

 

[]2epo]v[an]

Youre trying to bring a strawman that i said he changed the law. He did not. He rewrote the statute in his recomendations to doj as i said.

You, are a faggot monkey. (/s)

 

[BeBestBiden]

Mr. Joseph Biden is a suprheo! Who will make a 3rd party illeagal along a fat stupid white rednck cracko Repimplicams! God Bless a Mr. Joseph Biden! And a God Bless America!

 

[Yakuda]

It happens that I swallow Trump's cum v cause I m a sphyliis infected cunt.

You're a fucking insult to whores

 

[Nomad]

Youre trying to bring a strawman that i said he changed the law. He did not. He rewrote the statute in his recomendations to doj as i said.

You, are a faggot monkey. (/s)

Youre trying to bring a strawman that i said he changed the law. He did not. He rewrote the statute in his recomendations to doj as i said.

You, are a faggot monkey. (/s)

The statute says what it says and nobody "rewrote" it, you ridiculous fucking dolt.

The intent requirement was always there, going back decades. There is even at least one precedent setting case (Gorin v. United States) involving a WWII US Naval intelligence official who intentionally sold military intel to the Soviets, and whose conviction was overturned by the SCOTUS on the basis of lack of intent decades ago.

In Gorin v. United States (1941), the Supreme Court heard a challenge to a conviction of a Navy intelligence official who sold classified material to the Soviet Union on Japanese intelligence operations in the United States. In that case, the defendant was charged with selling information “relating to the national defense” to a foreign power. The defendant argued on appeal that the phrase “relating to the national defense” was unconstitutionally vague, so much so that the defendant was deprived of the ability to predetermine whether his actions were a crime.

Justice Stanley Reed wrote the majority opinion and disagreed that the law was unconstitutionally vague, but only on the very narrow grounds that the law required “intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States.” Only because the court read the law to require scienter, or bad faith, before a conviction could be sustained was the law constitutional. Otherwise, it would be too difficult for a defendant to know when exactly material related to the national defense. The court made clear that if the law criminalized the simple mishandling of classified information, it would not survive constitutional scrutiny, writing:

The sections are not simple prohibitions against obtaining or delivering to foreign powers information… relating to national defense. If this were the language, it would need to be tested by the inquiry as to whether it had double meaning or forced anyone, at his peril, to speculate as to whether certain actions violated the statute.

In other words, the defendant had to intend for his conduct to benefit a foreign power for his actions to violate 793(f).

Without the requirement of intent, the phrase “relating to the national defense” would be unconstitutionally vague. This reading of the statute has guided federal prosecutors ever since, which is why Comey based his decision not to file charges on Clinton’s lack of intent. This is also why no one has ever been convicted of violating 793(f) on a gross negligence theory.

https://warontherocks.com/2016/07/why-intent-not-gross-negligence-is-the-standard-in-clinton-case/

Criminal law has always taken intent into consideration and has never criminalized unintentional acts or mistakes.

Despite what stupid, vindictive rwnj jackasses like you want to believe, Hillary Clinton never "stole" classified information and never made it available to unauthorized parties, nor did she ever intend to harm the United States.

Hence, no criminal intent and no criminal charges.

Now go cry some more, bitch.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

No, unlike naive cock suckers like you, I understand that politicians have to play politics in order to keep everyone happy.

Joe is pandering to the diaper shitter segment of the far left like you a bit too much for my liking because if he didn't you'd be throwing tantrums and threatening to not vote in the next election.

That is of course your right, but it doesn't make your political demands any more feasible or accomplishable with an evenly divided Congress.

Therefore all we grownup adults can do is shake our heads, roll our eyes and hope we can keep the extremist assholes on both sides out of power for as long as possible.

Paralyzing cowardice, the primary characteristic of fence-sitting centrists, is what makes one illogically seek moderate solutions to radical problems.
And if you don't think that we've got radical problems, your standards are those of a knuckle-dragging mouth breather.
I find your type of tip-tower impossible to respect.
I always have.
I always will.
Try to grow a pair if it's not too late.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

there you go, acting all stupid again and saying bullshit because you're butthurt..........i'm sure you'd LOVE being the one telling others how to live, what to do, what to say, and more importantly what not to say......

YOU should be grateful for a constitution that provides you some protection from us

We don't need protection from you.
You need protection from us.
We coastal sophisticates are the majority, not the Middle American shitkickers, and our patience is running low.
If we go our own way, you'll be a third world country.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

We don't need protection from you.
You need protection from us.
We coastal sophisticates are the majority, not the Middle American shitkickers, and our patience is running low.
If we go our own way, you'll be a third world country.

why would we need protection from you? do you intend to do us harm???

 

[Goyboy]

Unfortunately, a 3rd party in this country would just ensure a Democrat win. That's just the way this 2 party system has been crafted. We always seem to be voting for the lesser of 2 evils.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

why would we need protection from you? do you intend to do us harm???

I repeat, IF WE GO OUR OWN WAY, YOU'LL BE A THRID WORLD COUNTRY.

 

[Goyboy]

We don't need protection from you.
You need protection from us.
We coastal sophisticates are the majority, not the Middle American shitkickers, and our patience is running low.
If we go our own way, you'll be a third world country.

Coastal sophisticates? Why are all the Democrat run cities failing?

Almost All of America’s Failed Cities are Democrat Cities
That includes 42 of the top 43 centers of violent crime.

The following chart shows the 50 cities that have the highest violent crime rates in the United States and: (a) have a population of 25,000 or more; (b) are governed by mayors who are clearly identifiable as either Democrats or Republicans;[5] and (c) have either a “Mayor-Council” (MC) form of government, a “Council-Manager” (CM) form of government, or a Hybrid (HYB) of the two.[6] Of those 50 cities, 46 are governed by Democratic mayors and administrations; only 4 are governed by Republicans. Moreover, 42 of the top 43 are governed by Democrats.

See Source for Chart: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/20...icas-failed-cities-are-democrat-john-perazzo/

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I repeat, IF WE GO OUR OWN WAY, YOU'LL BE A THRID WORLD COUNTRY.

Texas, as it's own country again, will be just fine..........you'll be buying our oil ROFL

 

[Goyboy]

I repeat, IF WE GO OUR OWN WAY, YOU'LL BE A THRID WORLD COUNTRY.

Uh no...... you've got it reversed .......

 

[Nomad]

Paralyzing cowardice, the primary characteristic of fence-sitting centrists, is what makes one illogically seek moderate solutions to radical problems.
And if you don't think that we've got radical problems, your standards are those of a knuckle-dragging mouth breather.

Knee-jerk reactionism, the primary characteristic of hissy-fit throwing extremists, is what makes one illogically seek radical non-solutions to age old problems, and which would only serve to create new problems in their place.

And if you don't think that we've got basically the same human-nature driven problems people have dealt with for millennia, your knowledge and understanding of humans and their history, is that of a knuckle-dragging mouth breather.

I find your type of tip-tower impossible to respect.
I always have.
I always will.
Try to grow a pair if it's not too late.

Good.
IDGAF about your worthless respect.

I find your type of tantrum thrower impossible to respect.
I always have.
I always will.
Try to grow a brain if it's not too late.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Texas, as it's own country again, will be just fine..........you'll be buying our oil ROFL

Sure, no problem. Or we could buy oil from our good friends in Venezuela.

I'm with you on that, though.
I'd love an independent Texas.
38 fewer red electoral votes works for me.