Trump should say "if elected, i PROMISE to prosecute hillary for email crimes."

Jarod said:
The Crime of DUI requires intent to drive while in an intoxicated state.
Click to expand...

Impotent Trumptard rage is hilarious, isn't it, Counselor?

giphy.gif
 
Blind rage but if you get them talking you can see they don't even understand the Criminal Justice System.
 
anatta said:
POTUS doesn't prosecute..
there is a ( supposed) red line of independence between DoJ and POTUS...
Click to expand...

Rune said:
The executive's job IS to enforce the laws idiot.
Click to expand...
Gawd almighty! now you can't even understand the make up of US government.

The executive BRANCH not the president themselves do the prosecution. I'm not even going to get into prosecutorial integrity...:palm:
 
Jarod said:
The Crime of DUI requires intent to drive while in an intoxicated state.
Click to expand...
Not talking about DUI, counselor. I'm talking about a drunk driver striking and killing a pedestrian. If you ask the drunk driver what their INTENTIONS were when they struck and killed the pedestrian, what do you think their answer would likely be? If they answer"of course I didn't INTEND to kill him! What do you think I am? Some kind of animal?!" Do you say, "oh, as long as you INTENDED no harm, you shouldn't be prosecuted"
 
callinectes said:
Not talking about DUI, counselor. I'm talking about a drunk driver striking and killing a pedestrian. If you ask the drunk driver what their INTENTIONS were when they struck and killed the pedestrian, what do you think their answer would likely be? If they answer"of course I didn't INTEND to kill him! What do you think I am? Some kind of animal?!" Do you say, "oh, as long as you INTENDED no harm, you shouldn't be prosecuted"
Click to expand...

You see, if you are charged with DUI manslaughter, you still had to have the intent to drive while in an intoxicated state. You did not have to have intent to strike the pedestrian, and that is why the driver is not charged with 1St Degree Murder, because the driver lacked that type of intent. Its not about intending harm or not, its about what is criminalized.

With DUI Manslaughter, the intent was the driving, the fact that the result was someone's death is an enhancement. A crime can be enhanced based on the result regardless of the intent to cause the result.
 
callinectes said:
18 USC 793 for one. Google the rest.
Click to expand...

Fool, the first sentence of that particular law deals with the intent issue.

Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States

There is absolutely no evidence HRC had intent or reason to believe that the information would be used to injure the United States.

Next!
 
Trump should say "if elected, i PROMISE to prosecute hillary for email crimes."

Jarod said:
You see, if you are charged with DUI manslaughter, you still had to have the intent to drive while in an intoxicated state. You did not have to have intent to strike the pedestrian, and that is why the driver is not charged with 1St Degree Murder, because the driver lacked that type of intent. Its not about intending harm or not, its about what is criminalized.

With DUI Manslaughter, the intent was the driving, the fact that the result was someone's death is an enhancement. A crime can be enhanced based on the result regardless of the intent to cause the result.
Click to expand...

So did Petraeus "intend" to give up information?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top