Post #30206 by Dope1 on the US Policy board

Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy ❤

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (25)

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

No. of Recommendations: 2

Solid enough to pass a motion to dismiss, yes.

Really low bar, especially with some of the judges that were drawn.

You don't want to litigate it, because in the past when we've discussed this you prefer to just ignore the details of the statutes and assume that if something was wrong (either in this case or in other contexts), it must therefore be criminally prosecutable against Clinton.

No, I don't want to litigate it because it's a waste of my time. I've shown you the exact USC Hillary! violated and it's never enough.

You guys can live in the past and be consumed with this Holy Hell Of Revenge you think Trump is going to unleash on half the country. Or Something. That's not my concern, nor is it my problem.

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

Print the post

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (25)

Prev | Next

Announcements

US Policy FAQ

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

A community forum supporting civilized, and highly helpful, self-educating investors that come together for Shrewdness and merry spirits. These message boards closely follow the look and feel of the old message boards at boards.fool.com prior to the boards redirected to discussion.fool.com. Shrewd'm is not affiliated with the comprehensive and excellent investment website, The Motley Fool (TMF), in any way. The Shrewd commmunity here has owed, and continues to owe, gratitude to The Motley Fool for nurturing a culture of jovial irreverence towards Wall St, and that tradition will continue here.