Donald Trump Versus Hillary Clinton

[turtlespeed 220]

rushmc

******No
He did not batter her

Or he would have been prosecuted.

By the letter of the law he did - and in some states it is called assault and battery.

If laws were exact and were clear as that, we would not need a supreme court.

Do you think an assault charge should be brought before the Supreme Court?

Did you read what the definition of assault and the definition of battery in that justification actually is, or are you going off feelings of what you think they should be?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[rushmc 23]

SkyDekker

*********No
He did not batter her

Or he would have been prosecuted.

By the letter of the law he did - and in some states it is called assault and battery.

If laws were exact and were clear as that, we would not need a supreme court.

Yet, there you were stating very clearly and succinctly that he did not batter her. You must think pretty highly of yourself.

I like how in one thread you say you don't care about lying, then get upset about someone lying.

Better stated, I enjoy your selective indignation on topics

And I do not think he battered her

Neither did anyone else in the prosecutors office.

See how this works? Not everyone agrees with you!
It is a subjective act which leads to different opinions.

Now I look forward to see what other direction you will try and take

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

turtlespeed

*********No
He did not batter her

Or he would have been prosecuted.

By the letter of the law he did - and in some states it is called assault and battery.

If laws were exact and were clear as that, we would not need a supreme court.

Do you think an assault charge should be brought before the Supreme Court?No, I was making the point that not everyone views things the same and the court is the final arbiter in the cases they take. If there were no disagreement about laws and intent there would be less need for the high court

Did you read what the definition of assault and the definition of battery in that justification actually is, or are you going off feelings of what you think they should be?

Law enforcement is a subject act in many cases. This is one that is not clear. I did read the definition. I do not think this was an assault. Now add to that the information about that shows the reporter left the area she was to be in and made contact with Trump. And then lies when asked if she touched him. It is a bigger picture that has to be put together to get the larger view.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[normiss 801]

Now you're lying.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

And I do not think he battered her

Fair enough. Do you think he touched her?

[rushmc 23]

SkyDekker

Quote

And I do not think he battered her

Fair enough. Do you think he touched her?

Yes

Do you think she touched Trump?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,991]

>He did not batter her

The prosecutor disagrees with you. "It met the technical threshold for the crime under Florida law."

Who to believe? The prosecutor in the case, or a far-right Internet poster who can't spell?

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>He did not batter her

The prosecutor disagrees with you. "It met the technical threshold for the crime under Florida law."

Who to believe? The prosecutor in the case, or a far-right Internet poster who can't spell?

No
He stated there was not enough evidence to proceed and the case was dropped

He stated that the police had reasonable cause to charge and arrest but it was ultimately dropped

So, he agrees with me, not you.

But then you know this.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[normiss 801]

You're still lying.
Stop twisting, try some facts.

[billvon 2,991]

>So, he agrees with me, not you.

RushMC: "He did not batter her"
Prosecutor: "It met the technical threshold for the crime[battery] under Florida law."

Let's say Hilary Clinton drove drunk and killed someone. But there wasn't a lot of evidence. And let's say the prosecutor said "well, what she did met the technical threshold for manslaughter under the law, but you're never going to get an impartial jury during an election - and the evidence is iffy - so let's not prosecute."

Would your claim then be "she did nothing wrong?"

[rushmc 23]

normiss

You're still lying.
Stop twisting, try some facts.

LOL

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Quote

then why the three weeks worth of lies that said it was a spontaneous riot resulting for a youtube video?

I'm sick of you.

If you can't understand the difference between "this happened", and "this happened and here's why" then you are even dumber than you appear.

- Dan G

[rushmc 23]

DanG

Quote

then why the three weeks worth of lies that said it was a spontaneous riot resulting for a youtube video?

I'm sick of you.

If you can't understand the difference between "this happened", and "this happened and here's why" then you are even dumber than you appear.

Translation
You messed up and time to bail

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>So, he agrees with me, not you.

RushMC: "He did not batter her"
Prosecutor: "It met the technical threshold for the crime[battery] under Florida law."

Let's say Hilary Clinton drove drunk and killed someone. But there wasn't a lot of evidence. And let's say the prosecutor said "well, what she did met the technical threshold for manslaughter under the law, but you're never going to get an impartial jury during an election - and the evidence is iffy - so let's not prosecute."

Would your claim then be "she did nothing wrong?"

If there is not a lot of evidence the question can not be answered and she would be innocent.
If there was a video of what you post above, she would go to prison

There is however video of the so called battery

Big difference

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[normiss 801]

It's hard to believe that is actually possible even for him, yet it appears you are correct.

[DanG 1]

Quote

I'll also expect you to agree that there was blame placed on the video (that no one seems to know what is being referenced anymore)

There was blame placed on the video. And there were many other video related riots around the region that same day. Do you think it is unreasonable for the Administration to assume that this attack was related to all the other attacks that happened sat the same time?

And when I say everyone knew it was a terror attack I mean that any attack of this sort is a terror attack. It was intended to create terror. When Clinton e-mailed her family to say that a terror attack occurred it doesn't mean she knew the why, how, and who of the attack.

Quote

The truth was that there were weapons being supplied out of that embassy that drove the attacks, the admin KNEW it, they didn't beef up security, and they tried to cover it up.

The gun running thing is conjecture as far as I know. If you have a source that backs that up, I'd love to see it.

- Dan G

[DanG 1]

Quote

Translation
You messed up and time to bail

No translation needed. Your posts have become boring, I'm not responding to you anymore. I really just hope you'll go away, but I know that's not going to happen.

- Dan G

[jakee 1,490]

rushmc

No
He did not batter her

Or he would have been prosecuted.

The prosecutors (who you must believe since you've cited them twice now) say otherwise.

And either way, it doesn't change the fact that he lied about what he did to her and tried to ruin her career over it, does it?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,490]

Quote

Neither did anyone else in the prosecutors office.

Your own links show that you're lying.

Quote

See how this works? Not everyone agrees with you!

The prosecutor's office certainly disagrees with you.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,490]

Quote

So, he agrees with me, not you.

You are a liar and an idiot.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 2,991]

And your one warning. Cut it out.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

rushmc

***

Quote

And I do not think he battered her

Fair enough. Do you think he touched her?

Yes

Do you think she touched Trump?

And you see no problem with him lying about it? But her lying about touching Trump instantly diminishes her credibility?

[kallend 2,027]

rushmc

***

Quote

And I do not think he battered her

Fair enough. Do you think he touched her?

Yes

Do you think she touched Trump?

Newton's 3rd law.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,027]

More Trump campaign lawlessness:

mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/20/nyregion/donald-trumps-jet-a-regular-on-the-campaign-trail-is-not-registered-to-fly.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0&referer

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ryoder 1,590]

Pssst!
Donald, it was 9/11, not 7/11.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aj_IsiMA4G4

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.