Getting debate questions ahead of time, isnt unethical? My god you are indoctrinated.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by spence View Post

At this point I don't think it's the point of the Mueller investigation to provide proof for anything beyond what they have indicted.:fishin: Certainly these plea agreements are not given as get out of jail free cards. They are evidence that further indictments are justified for more severe crimes.





I was just reading an article by a guy who was a federal prosecutor who said the exact opposite....how many cases have you tried?


"Justice Department policy calls for prosecutors to indict a defendant on the most serious readily provable charge, not to plead out a case on minor charges to obtain cooperation. The federal sentencing guidelines also encourage this. They allow a judge to sentence the defendant below the often harsh guidelines calculation. This can mean a cooperator gets as little as zero jail time or time-served, no matter how serious the charges. This sentencing leniency happens only if the defendant pleads guilty and provides substantial assistance to the government’s investigation. That is what enables the prosecutor to entice an accomplice to cooperate; the prosecutor does not need to entice cooperation by pleading the case out for a song. The practice of pressuring a guilty plea to the major charges makes the accomplice a formidable witness at trial. The jury will know that he is facing a potential sentence of perhaps decades in prison unless he discloses everything he knows and tells the truth in his testimony. That is what triggers the prosecutor’s obligation to file the motion that allows the court to sentence under the guidelines-recommended sentence. Trading a plea on minor charges for cooperation is a foolish gambit that badly damages the prosecutor’s case. It suggests that the cooperator must not have disclosed details about the major scheme. Otherwise the prosecutor would have charged him with it. It implies that the prosecutor is so desperate to make a case on a major target that he gave bad actors a pass on serious charges — something experienced prosecutors know that juries hate. It is even worse to plead accomplices out on false-statements counts. This establishes that the main thing the jury should know about the accomplice is that he is not to be trusted. That is not how you make someone a strong witness. And unlike the accomplice who pleads guilty to the major scheme, an accomplice who pleads guilty to false statements is looking at a maximum sentence of just five years and a more likely sentence of no time even before he has cooperated — not much of an incentive to disclose everything and tell the truth. A good prosecutor does not front-load the benefits of cooperation; he makes the accomplice earn sentencing leniency by full disclosure and testimony."

considering all of the miscreants you've defended over the years this is absolutely hilarious

you are more desperate than the NY Giants for a win...

possible collusion is whats alleged (secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose )

we have seen guilty pleas on the deceitful part lying to the FBI or is that a nothing burger


how do you ask a question to some one (me) looking for an answers that you know i cant answer .. 1 because I am not involved in the investigation and #2 the whole thing is currently under investigation and a conclusion has not been made..

in one case...with Flynn...one of the "lies" was saying he didn't recall or couldn't remember something...it that's a crime Hillary should be doing consecutive life sentences

Change the subject frequently?

Prosecutors don't try cases and I'm confident the Special Prosecutor understands the law.

huh?......didn't suggest he doesn't understand the law but that your zeal is misguided....

"we have seen guilty pleas on the deceitful part lying to the FBI or is that a nothing burger "

For Flynn, it is not a nohtingburger. As regards to Trump, as of now, is there evidence he did anything wrong? Alan Dershowitz says no.

How is that changing the subject? The subject, was whether or not anything in the email leak, revealed unethical behavior?

Jim: the leaked emails revealed unethical actions by team Hilary

Spence: name one thing that was unethical.

Jim: the emails revealed that she got debate questions ahead of time, which is unethical.

Spence: why are you changing the subject?


Spence, if the leaked emails revealed no unethical actions, than the leak couldn't have cost Hilary the election. if the emails only revealed (again) her yoga schedule and Chelsea's wedding plans, then there was no harm.

If, however, the leaked email shed light on actions that turned the public off, then most of the blame lies with Hilary for behaving that way, not with the person who broke the true story.

I think the debate question was one or two things about her debate with Sanders. Wrong but big whoop.

Trump then lies and claims it was hurting him...it just stirs the pot and nobody knows what's for dinner.

There's a lot of evidence he did something very serious. Have to rely on the Special Prosecutor to see how clear the picture is.

And while everyone is focused on this bull#^&#^&#^&#^& the billionaires push through a massive tax cut that will defund so many social services that the poor depend on.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

better see a doctor if that lasts more than 5 hours

Or call your mom :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wrong, it was a debate with Trump.

So the media conspiring to influence the outcome of a presidential election, is no big deal to you. But the public learning the truth about what team Hilary did during the campaign, THAT concerns you. Well that makes all kinds of sense.

Everyone who thinks Spence would still think it was no big deal if they gave debate questions ahead of time to the republican candidate, raise your hand? Anyone?

"Trump then lies and claims it was hurting him"

The media is serially unfair to him.

Such as?

Alan Dershowitz, as liberal as you can be, disagrees with you. Completely.

If that's true ( a huge, huge if), you can take your increased tax refund, and donate it all.

What do you mean “if”??? Are you joking?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes I mean if. Nothing has been passed by both houses of Congress yet. If the gop cuts vital services, shame on them, and they deserve to get creamed. They are saying they aren’t doing that. The liberals are saying they are doing that. It’s not established whatbisbtrue. I heard they were hurting Medicare, Mitch McConnell said it’s not true, and he’s not a hard-right liar.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Medicaid won’t be cut? Yeah right!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There was a study done that showed that excessive consumption of Kool-Aid, coupled with over exposure to tinfoil, lead to increased instances of Early onset Dementia in laboratory rats and liberals

I mean, I can't claim that I don't root for one side (sorry, side is now hate speech), party...but to claim that it's not a big deal when a TV station that calls itself a source for "news", is taking active steps to cheat for one candidate...it's amazing.

The reason we guarantee freedom of the press, is so that they can give us ACCURATE information. For the press to use those freedoms to tilt the scales in favor of a presidential candidate? THAT is a direct threat to our democracy. Because the people who run networks would control the elections, rather than the voters. It's unbelievable.

Whatever is in that Kool-Aid, I could use some, I'm taking the family to Disneyworld next week...

Mitch McConell says no.

Different strokes for different folks. Clinton aides lied to FBI--no punishment:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=spartandhp

this is just remarkable...seems what we really need is a special prosecutor to investigate the hyper-partisanship, obstruction and collusion that is rampant within the "justice" department and FBI:kewl:

Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument, which is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.

I see what you did there..the russians again...what is the definition of "justice"?

Please for once fact check yourself.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/...82070?lo=ap_a1

This doesn't look good.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device